Question

Which of the following is a claim made by the author but NOT supported in the passage by evidence, explanation, or example? 1\. Selective incapacitation may conflict with norms of social justice. 2\. The criticism of statistical dangerousness is related to the nature of predictive errors. 3\. Under selective incapacitation, first-time offenders would get short terms of incarceration. 4\. Some white-collar offenders impose greater costs on society than many dangerous street offenders.

Short answer

After analyzing each claim, the claim that is NOT supported by evidence, explanation, or example is: (insert the correct claim number and restate the claim).

Step-by-step solution

Analyze the first claim

Examine the text for evidence, explanation, or example to support the claim that selective incapacitation may conflict with norms of social justice. If it is found, this claim is not the correct answer. If it cannot be found, this claim could be the correct answer.

Analyze the second claim

Examine the text for evidence, explanation, or example to support the claim that the criticism of statistical dangerousness is related to the nature of predictive errors. If it is found, this claim is not the correct answer. If it cannot be found, this claim could be the correct answer.

Analyze the third claim

Examine the text for evidence, explanation, or example to support the claim that under selective incapacitation, first-time offenders would get short terms of incarceration. If it is found, this claim is not the correct answer. If it cannot be found, this claim could be the correct answer.

Analyze the fourth claim

Examine the text for evidence, explanation, or example to support the claim that some white-collar offenders impose greater costs on society than many dangerous street offenders. If it is found, this claim is not the correct answer. If it cannot be found, this claim could be the correct answer.

Identify the correct answer

Based on the analysis in Steps 1-4, determine which claim is the one not supported by evidence, explanation, or example. The claim that is not supported will be the correct answer.

Key concepts

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is a fundamental part of LSAT preparation, as it involves understanding and evaluating arguments. In the context of this exercise, logical reasoning is used to examine claims to see if they are supported by evidence. Logical reasoning requires examining each part of the argument carefully.

• Identify the premises and the conclusion: Determine the statements supporting the claim (premises) and the main point (conclusion).
• Look for evidence: Search for factual examples or explanations that back up the claim.

Understanding logical reasoning helps test-takers assess an argument's strength. This skill also helps in determining the validity of claims, which is essential in answering LSAT questions efficiently. Remember, a logically sound argument is one where the premises lead directly to the conclusion.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the art of judiciously and systematically processing information to reach an informed conclusion. It's about being active in your learning rather than passive. In the exercise provided, critical thinking is necessary to carefully scrutinize each claim.

• Questioning: Ask yourself if the claim is backed by the text or if irrelevant or non-existent evidence is being used.
• Analytical skills: Break down complex information into simpler pieces and assess each component.

Critical thinkers look beyond the text at face value and delve deeper into what is or isn't justified. This vigilance in questioning assumptions and exploring potential biases is critical in identifying unsupported claims.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis involves dissecting an argument to understand its structure and evaluate its components. In the context of this LSAT question, it is necessary to analyze each claim thoroughly to determine whether it is supported.

• Supporting Evidence: Identify any evidence or examples that strengthen or weaken the claim.
• Logical Consistency: Ensure each part of the argument flows logically and consistently towards the conclusion.

Once you have a strong understanding of the structure of arguments, it is easier to identify flaws or missing elements. Effective argument analysis enables LSAT candidates to sort out claims that lack proper support and arrive at the correct answer.

Claim Evaluation

Claim evaluation is the process of assessing whether a claim is supported by adequate evidence. In the LSAT exercise, you are tasked with identifying which claim lacks substantial backing.

• Evidence Examination: Check if each claim in the text is substantiated by concrete data or examples.
• Relevance: Evaluate if the evidence presented is relevant to the claim being made.

Evaluating claims involves not just understanding what is stated but also recognizing the implications and credibility of the evidence. Strong skills in claim evaluation help prevent overlooking unsupported assertions and guide you in making informed choices.