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?
42-4-6 Forum
-
outlookingin
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:08 pm
Re: 42-4-6
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?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?
-
Manhattan LSAT Noah
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:43 am
Re: 42-4-6
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.
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.
