LSAT Explanation PT 38, S1, Q16: Policy analyst: Increasing the size of

LSAT Question Stem

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the flawed reasoning in the policy analyst's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the structure of the policy analyst's argument in the passage. The argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise: Increasing the size of a police force is only a stopgap method of crime prevention; it does not get at the root causes of crime.

Conclusion: City officials should not respond to rising crime rates by increasing the size of their city's police force.

The policy analyst's argument is flawed because it assumes that if a method (in this case, increasing the size of the police force) doesn't permanently solve a problem (crime), then it should not be used at all. This reasoning overlooks the possibility that a temporary solution could be helpful while a more permanent solution is being sought.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is it possible that a stopgap method of crime prevention could be helpful while city officials work on addressing the root causes of crime?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices for this Parallel Flaw question. We are looking for an answer choice that shares the same flawed reasoning as the policy analyst's argument.

a) This answer choice is not a good match because it argues that overly demanding rules make behavior worse, whereas the original argument doesn't claim that increasing the police force makes crime worse.

b) This answer choice is also not a good match because it suggests that building dams worsens the effects of floods. The original argument doesn't claim that increasing the police force worsens the crime situation.

c) This answer choice is not a good match because its conclusion is that companies should always use burglar alarm systems, which is not a negative conclusion like the original argument.

d) This answer choice is the correct one because it shares the same flawed reasoning as the policy analyst's argument. It states that because a drug doesn't cure a disease but only reduces its harmful effects, doctors should not prescribe it. This is similar to the original argument's reasoning that if a method doesn't permanently solve a problem, it should not be used at all.

e) This answer choice is not a good match because its conclusion is about investigating other ways to combat crime, which is not a negative conclusion like the original argument.

In conclusion, answer choice D is the correct answer because it shares the same flawed reasoning as the policy analyst's argument in the passage. Both arguments assume that if a method doesn't permanently solve a problem, it should not be used at all, overlooking the potential benefits of temporary solutions.