LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#100953
Complete Question Explanation

Resolve. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.
 jlam061695
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: Sep 17, 2016
|
#30581
I am wondering why the correct answer is E? I initially chose C, because if the total number of crimes has risen while the proportion of them has fallen due to the country's increasing population, then it contradicts a premise in the argument (1st sentence). I also think I know why B is wrong (the stimulus only addresses the crimes that ARE reported, so the fact that most crimes committed in the country are not reported is irrelevant), but E doesn't seem to provide a sufficient explanation? If a greater proportion of crimes are reported to local police departments now than 20 years ago, then how does it explain the fact that a certain number of citizens view the total number of crimes to be less now? It only provides more evidence that the incidence of crime per 100,000 people has increased over the past 20 years.
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#30708
Thanks for asking, jlam. These numbers and percentages issues can be a bit troubling at times. The thing we need to accomplish is a resolution of the paradox, and explanation for the discrepancy. Why does the reporting suggest a higher crime rate while people think crime has gone down?

Answer C doesn't help to explain either side of this paradox. If crime has gone down in proportion to the population, why has the reporting gone up? If crime is actually up, why do people think it has gone down? C is an opposite answer, deepening the mystery instead of shedding light on it.

Answer E tells us that the issue is in the reporting. If people are reporting more than they used to, that would explain the increase in reporting per 100,000 people. the actual number of crimes that occurred could have gone down, while at the same time both the number and percentage of crimes being reported went up. For example, 20 years ago there were 100 crimes actually committed per 100,000 people, but only 10 of those were reported. Maybe folks didn't trust the police, or thought there was no point, or they were embarrassed? Now, 20 years later, actual crime is down to 50 crimes per 100,000 people, but they are reporting 40 of them - a huge increase in reporting, but a drop in actual crime. That solves it.

See if that makes some more sense to you and let us know if you need more help with it. Talk to you soon!
 jlam061695
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: Sep 17, 2016
|
#30754
That clears it up for me, thanks!
User avatar
 crispycrispr
  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: Apr 08, 2021
|
#87715
Adam Tyson wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:05 pm Thanks for asking, jlam. These numbers and percentages issues can be a bit troubling at times. The thing we need to accomplish is a resolution of the paradox, and explanation for the discrepancy. Why does the reporting suggest a higher crime rate while people think crime has gone down?

Answer C doesn't help to explain either side of this paradox. If crime has gone down in proportion to the population, why has the reporting gone up? If crime is actually up, why do people think it has gone down? C is an opposite answer, deepening the mystery instead of shedding light on it.

Answer E tells us that the issue is in the reporting. If people are reporting more than they used to, that would explain the increase in reporting per 100,000 people. the actual number of crimes that occurred could have gone down, while at the same time both the number and percentage of crimes being reported went up. For example, 20 years ago there were 100 crimes actually committed per 100,000 people, but only 10 of those were reported. Maybe folks didn't trust the police, or thought there was no point, or they were embarrassed? Now, 20 years later, actual crime is down to 50 crimes per 100,000 people, but they are reporting 40 of them - a huge increase in reporting, but a drop in actual crime. That solves it.

See if that makes some more sense to you and let us know if you need more help with it. Talk to you soon!
Hi,

In (C), I don't get how if crime rates has risen but fallen to proportion of population, that wouldn't make think there has been less crime.

In (E), if more crimes were reported, how does that explain why people think there are fewer crimes? This seems to make the information more paradoxical to me.
User avatar
 Becca1924
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2021
|
#94183
Hi,

I chose C because it seemed like a reasonable answer for a numbers and percentages question, although I don't fully understand it. Can you break down in actual numbers what C would look like for this population. I sort of get the first part, but what is tripping me up is the part about the total annual number of crimes falling in proportion to the country's growing population.

In hindsight, I get why E is the better answer, but I need to better understand C.

Thanks!
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#94196
Hi Becca,

Numbers! I love using numbers on this test to help me understand the concepts in these types of questions.

Per the stimulus, the incidence of crime per 100,000 people has risen substantially over the last 20 years. Because it's talking about a proportion/rate, it doesn't give us any information about overall number, just the rate of crime.

Possible numbers: 20 years ago 100 crimes per 100,000 people, now 10,000 crimes per 100,000 people

The stimulus goes on to say though that people when asked report fewer crimes (number concept) than expected.

When I read this initially, I thought the answer would suggest that the overall population had dropped significantly. That would explain how the rate could go up while the absolute number would go down. Unfortunately, that was not a possible answer. BOO. It happens to the best of us.

Answer choice (C) is so so tempting because it looks close to what my prephrase was. However, the key difference between the prephrase and answer choice (C) is that answer choice (C) says the overall population is growing. If the rate grows AND the population grows, then the overall number has to grow as well. Answer choice (C) is not consistent with the fact that people report fewer crimes.

Answer choice (E) on the other hand explains the paradox. The rate of reported crime is rising without overall crime rising because people are reporting crime more than in the past. The overall crime rate itself isn't rising, just the reporting of crime. That resolves our paradox.

Hope that helps!
User avatar
 Becca1924
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2021
|
#94201
So C is basically the opposite of what we are looking for in an answer? Rising total number whereas people say the total number of crimes has fallen; smaller percentage of crime per 100k people whereas police report increasing incidence of crime. But if the there was 10k crimes and people reported 10% of all crimes, that would be only 1k out of 100k reported. Then if the number of crimes fell to 5k crimes but people reported 100% of the time, that would be a significant percentage increase even though the total number of crime was halved. Therefore, E resolves the discrepancy. Did I get that right?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#94237
You got it, Becca! This is a good example of the "reporting paradox," a pattern in which reporting indicates one thing but other information suggests the opposite of what the reporting says. The resolution to the reporting paradox usually has to do with change in or problems with the reporting. Here, reporting increased or got more accurate, giving the false impression that crime rose. If the reporting isn't actually indicating a change in the rate of crime, but just a change in the reporting rate, that solves the problem!
User avatar
 bobersenbob
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Sep 09, 2022
|
#97080
Hello, I'm confused by your explanation of the answer E. One of the tutors here explained that there 'COULD' be less actual crime or the impression of crime given lower proportion of reports. How can we make this assumption?

I feel like I don't get LSAT's common sense lol. How is it common sense to assume

Lower percentage of reports → more impression of crime

If this is common sense, can someone please explain that to me? If not common sense, can someone explain where the heck in the stimulus that assumption is supported?

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.