Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Someone claims that because high-crime areas have lots of police, the police aren't doing anything to stop the crime.

Conclusion: The presence of police does not actually lead to a decrease in neighborhood crime.

Reasoning: Statistical evidence shows that neighborhoods with the most police patrols also happen to have the highest crime rates.

Analysis: This argument falls into a classic 'correlation vs. causation' trap. It assumes that because police presence and high crime happen together, the police aren't effective, ignoring the very likely possibility that police are sent to those areas because the crime is already high. When looking for the flaw, keep an eye out for an answer choice that points out this potential reversal of cause and effect.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

1.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

Correct Answer
D
D identifies the reverse-causation problem: areas often have more police because they already have relatively high crime. If that’s true, the observed correlation cannot show that police presence fails to reduce crime.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep