LSAT

Well, it's official. I've FINALLY put the dreaded Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) BEHIND ME. Truly, the anticipation has been killing me! And now here I sit..2 hours after finishing...and I'M FINALLY DONE! I can't really describe how that feels!!! The only problem is, I won't know my score for 3 more weeks, and thus won't know if I can put my LSAT books in a box under the house or if I must pack them in my Russia suitcase to retake the blasted thing in October. :) I'm really hoping this was my first (and final) time taking the BEAST.

In celebration I thought I could post a problem from a previous test...just to give y'all a taste of the insanity :) (and in my defense...it might seem easy...but try 4.5 hours of them STRAIGHT gaaaaaaaaaaaa) Oh and you have exactly 1 minute 30 seconds to come up with the correct answer (not joking!) DON'T CHEAT!:

In the years 1971 to 1980, the population of the state prison system was on average about 82 percent of maximum occupancy. During those years, the average number of prisoners entering the system each year was equivalent to 9.1 percent of maximum occupancy. From the years 1981 to 1984, the average number of prisoners entering the system each year fell to 7.3 percent of maximum occupancy, yet the population of the state prison system rose to almost 89 percent of maximum occupancy.

Which one of the following, if true, helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?

(A) Between 1981 and 1984, the average sentence length of a prisoner in the state system increased.

(B) Beginning in 1981, many of those entering the state prison system had been transferred from prisons in other states.

(C) Between 1981 and 1984, the percentage of prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes increased by 26 percent.

(D) In 1981, a legislative fact-finding committee proposed a revision of the state's parole and work release programs.

(E) Between 1971 and 1984, the proportion of active criminals actually caught and incarcerated in the state prison system has steadily increased.



*********************************************************************************

Answer: (A)

The apparent paradox stems from a misuse of statistics. In the early years, the prisons were 82% full, and just over 9% of the total possible occupancy arrived each year in the form of new prisoners. Now that the latter figure is down to 7.3%, the author is surprised that the prisons are more full: 89% full. She evidently expects that as one figure drops, so should the other. The key is understanding that she is focusing on the trend in incoming prisoners only, when the totals take into account all prisoners. Consider the long-termers: If the average length of sentences of all prisoners is increasing, then it's small wonder that the prisons are more crowded now, even if a smaller percentage of the inmates are newcomers. That's what (A) is all about.

(B) is wrong because where the prisoners came from has no impact on how many are, or should be, here in this state; with (C), nothing in the evidence concerns the nature of crime, so no information about the nature of crime can resolve the paradox. (D) is way too weak—a "proposed revision"? Was it instituted? And even if it was, what effect would it have? There's no way to know, so (D) is irrelevant. And (E), even if true, begs the question of why, if the percentage of total prisoners entering the system is lower than years ago, are the prisons more full? All (E) says is that fewer criminals are getting off scot-free.