Q7 - Unlike newspapers in the old

[peg_city]

Why is C wrong?

The conclusion is

"one should not leave one's home except for absolute necessities"

We need to weaken the conclusion, which C does.

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

It would be helpful, when posting, if you described WHY you think a certain way.

We must consider the evidence in all strengthen/weaken problems. Logical Reasoning is about the connection between evidence and conclusion, not just the conclusion alone.

You argue that because people experience more crimes in their own neighborhood than they do in other places, that they should therefore leave home?

This kind of reasoning needs many assumptions in order to function, and is therefore incorrect. What's "more?" What if people experience 0 crimes in other places, and 1 crime in their neighborhood? Does that mean crime is "out of control"? That crime is out of control is an essential part of the conclusion.

What's home? What if the crimes they experience in their own neighborhood occur ONLY when they try to leave it? Would this weaken the idea that they should leave? Clearly not.

These are some of the reasons (C) is wrong.

Try to focus on the ENTIRE argument.

Premise:
newspapers are NOW full of crime stories, in the past they weren't

Conclusion:
crime is out of control (and we should not leave home)

The correct answer will most likely be directed at the CONNECTION between the premise and the conclusion, not merely the conclusion itself.

Think about what assumptions are being made in the argument. Clearly, the author is assuming that what the newspapers say is in fact occurring, assuming that if coverage increases, actual crime is increasing as well.

Isn't it possible that coverage is getting more thorough, and the actual number of crimes has not changed? This is what answer choice (A) points out.

(B) out of scope

(D) out of scope - the argument has nothing to do with the different kinds of violent crimes

(E) has no effect on the argument whatsoever.

[ethan.kong1991]

Why is not (E) the correct answer?

I mean if new magazines take on a more important role in informing crimes, they will feel more obliged to cover crime stories.

[sumukh09]

Why is not (E) the correct answer?

I mean if new magazines take on a more important role in informing crimes, they will feel more obliged to cover crime stories.

A couple things I can think of specifically that make E wrong.

1) News Magazines? When did the stimulus talk about them? I mean, newspapers and televised news programs are close, but they're not exactly the same thing.

2) Does "playing a more important role" mean that back in the old days it's possible crimes occurred just as much as today? Not really. Maybe news magazines back in the day had zero coverage of crimes, and just now they've increased them. We want an answer choice that questions the conclusion that crime is now out of control, so maybe news magazines playing a more important role is because crimes have gone up; this would strengthen the argument if anything.

[keane.xavier]

Boy, this question was tricky. I think I fell for every trap they set in each answer choice before ultimately selecting the correct answer in blind-review. Because I struggled with this question and wrote it up, I'd like to post my thoughts.

Argument:

Old newspapers and TV programs were not full of stories about murders and assaults; new newspapers and TV programs are full of stories about murders and assaults in the author’s city. Because of the increased attention devoted to murders and assaults in the author’s city, the author concludes that violent crime must be out of control (and that to be safe, one shouldn't leave their home).

We're being asked to weaken the conclusion, so here were my thoughts before looking at the answer choice:

Because of the increased attention devoted to covering murders and assaults in newspapers and TV programs, the author concludes that violent crime must be out of control or, in other words, violent crime has increased. However, there is a glaring hole in this argument: just because newspapers and TV programs are covering more murders and assaults doesn’t mean that all violent crime has increased. There are other types of violent crimes beyond assaults and murders, such as robbery or rape. Furthermore, just because newspapers and TV programs are covering these types of crimes more doesn’t mean that this type of crime has occurred more frequently. Perhaps these outlets are selling more newspapers or gaining more viewers by covering murders and assaults than if they’d cover other topics. Thus, these crimes could simply be receiving more coverage while the actual crime rate has stayed the same. Finally, the author concludes from the increased coverage about murders and assaults in his or her city that all violent crime is out of control everywhere and that people shouldn’t leave their houses anywhere (note that he doesn't reduce the scope of his argument to his city alone).

A. At first, I didn't see what new information this answer choice added. However, it does, indeed, offer new information. In the stimulus, the author concludes from his observation that newspapers and TV programs are covering more murders and assaults that violent crime must be increasing. However, this answer choice explains his observation: it reveals that newspapers and TV programs are simply providing more comprehensive coverage of violent crime now than they did back then, thus explaining the author’s observation that “today’s newspapers and televised news programs are full of stories about murders and assaults.” If newspapers and TV programs are providing more comprehensive coverage of violent crimes nowadays, of which "murder" and "assault" are subsets within this category, then this would explain why the author has seen “murder” and “assault” in these mediums more often. This suggests an alternative reason for the author’s observation: he or she hasn’t seen more “murder” and “assault” in the headlines because of an increased rate of violent crime but rather because of increasingly comprehensive coverage of these violent crimes, namely murder and assault.

B. I thought that this answer choice can't be dismissed on scope. I think that this strengthens the argument, actually. This fact confirms the author's suspicion that violent crime is out of control everywhere. Note that the author doesn't reduce the scope of his or her conclusion solely to his city. He or she concludes that violent crime must be out of control in general because of his or her observations from his city's newspaper and TV programs.

C. At first, I almost thought that this weakened the conclusion. However, it doesn’t. The fact that people experience more violent crimes in their neighborhoods doesn't directly translate into experiencing more violent crimes in their homes. Does neighborhood mean “out and about in the neighborhood” or “sitting at home on the couch”? Perhaps “neighborhoods” means “out and about”: well, the author said to be safe, you shouldn’t leave your home in the first place, so this makes sense. Perhaps it means “at home on the couch”: well, this would slightly weaken the argument--but by how much? We don't know what "more" means. If the difference is marginal, does it truly matter? Violent crime is purportedly out of control anyways. However, because we don’t know what “neighborhood” denotes, we can’t weaken the second half of the conclusion.

D. I'm not sure that we can dismiss this answer choice on the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with different types of violent crimes, either. This argument does have something to do with different types of violent crimes. Namely, the author concludes from the fact that he observed more murders and assaults that all violent crimes have increased. There is a gap in the author's reasoning, as there are other types of violent crimes than assault and murder (rape and robbery). This was an area that LSAC could've had us attack, but alas, they chose a different route.

I dismissed this answer choice for a different reason that, now that I've prepped for some time, I've increasingly become sensitive to. It seems to come up frequently. This fact doesn't weaken the argument because the argument is about an increase in the total number of violent crimes in general rather than an increase or decrease in the proportion of individual violent crimes in respect to one another(murder, rape, robbery, assault). Given this answer choice, murder could still comprise a lower proportion of violent crimes now and there could still well be more violent crimes in general now (with simply a lower percentage of those violent crimes being murder), thus supporting the author's claim. But in this example, we don't know whether the total number of crimes has, in fact, increased. In short, this may be dismissed on scope, but for a slightly different reason than provided above: the "proportion-total" trick. (Note: no disrespect whatsoever is intended to "Bbirdwell).

E. We don’t care about news magazines. Their role doesn’t matter. The role of newspapers and TV programs matters. This doesn’t weaken the argument.

As always, comments and criticisms are welcomed and encouraged. Thanks, all. (Also, brevity isn't my strong suit. For that, I apologize.)

[williamkazenas]

I initially selected A but I had a hard time eliminating D.

"Murder comprised a larger proportion of violent crimes in the old days than it does today."

Ah man, that means I have a larger % chance of getting murdered today than I did in the past, and although this has nothing to do with newspapers (if this answer choice is assume to be true as stated in the instructions) then this makes me really not want to go outside in my neighborhood.

But then I noticed the word "PROPORTION" and realized this was immediately wrong. We are talking about violent crimes as a whole are out of control. Maybe in 1950, 50% of violent crimes were murders and now the murder rate is 10%. Maybe this year only one person got murdered...and 10000000000 people were stabbed. The proportion of murders has nothing to do with anything in regards to the # of violent crimes as a whole. Therefore D is wrong.