top of page

LSAT Preptest 152, Section 2, Question 5

"A store was vandalized repeatedly…"

Explanation

To evaluate which statements would call this conclusion into question, we must consider alternative explanations for the reduction in vandalism or factors that undermine the effectiveness of the bright lighting.

A. Calls the conclusion into question by suggesting an alternative reason (increased police patrolling) for the reduction in vandalism, not the bright lighting. 


B. Calls the conclusion into question by implying that the lights could not have been installed in the time frame before the reduction in vandalism was observed. 


C. (Correct Response) Does not call the conclusion into question. If adjacent stores also experienced a reduction in vandalism, this could be due to the bright lighting around the perimeter of the store in question or a shared lighting system, which supports the friend's conclusion. 


D. Calls the conclusion into question by suggesting that the bright lights were never installed, so they could not have been the cause of the reduction in vandalism. 


E. Calls the conclusion into question by providing an alternative explanation (the watchdog) for the reduction in vandalism, not the bright lighting.

Option C is the one that does NOT call into question the friend's conclusion. The other options (A, B, D, E) present alternative explanations or undermine the possibility that the bright lighting was the cause of the reduction in vandalism.

bottom of page