42-4-6

User avatar
timmydoeslsat
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:07 pm

42-4-6

Postby timmydoeslsat » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:49 pm

42-4-6: This is not about the question stem, but rather the stimulus structure.

Am I correct in assessing that we have a subsidiary conclusion leading to the main conclusion.

"More likely than ever to be a victim of violent crime" is what I took for being a subsidiary conclusion from the premise of police responding to 17% more violent calls than in the previous year. I took that the more likely comment to be an extrapolation of that fact/premise. Since this stimulus used the structure of:


Fact ----shows that----Statement.


Is this structure necessarily giving me a premise----conclusion structure, by using the phrase of shows that?

User avatar
outlookingin
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: 42-4-6

Postby outlookingin » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:18 am

timmydoeslsat wrote:42-4-6: This is not about the question stem, but rather the stimulus structure.

Am I correct in assessing that we have a subsidiary conclusion leading to the main conclusion.

"More likely than ever to be a victim of violent crime" is what I took for being a subsidiary conclusion from the premise of police responding to 17% more violent calls than in the previous year. I took that the more likely comment to be an extrapolation of that fact/premise. Since this stimulus used the structure of:


Fact ----shows that----Statement.


Is this structure necessarily giving me a premise----conclusion structure, by using the phrase of shows that?


Not sure if I fully understand the depth to which you are parsing this here stimulus, but here's my two cents: yes, this is a subsidiary conclusion. In this same section, #16 and #21 also test the concept of subsidiary conclusions. Right?

Manhattan LSAT Noah
Posts: 746
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am

Re: 42-4-6

Postby Manhattan LSAT Noah » Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:32 pm

I originally saw the argument's core to be this:

cops responded to 17% more violent crime calls --> average citizen more likely than ever to be violent crime victim

I see what you mean--I think--about the first sentence being the final conclusion. Probably I ignored it because the question seemed like a classic play on the gap between reported statistic and actual. However, I could see the gap being between the more likely to be a victim and violent crime becoming a serious problem. Seems like you were aware of both--nice job.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, Bing [Bot], CPA-->JD, DumbHollywoodActor, jonny27, Lahtso Nuggin, mrgstephe, MSNbot Media, rinkrat19, stego, StopLawying, Tazewell and 20 guests