Question

Statement: Crime rates decreased after better street lighting. Conclusions: I. Visibility reduces crime. II. Criminals prefer darkness.

1. Visibility reduces crime.
2. Criminals prefer darkness.

• A. Only I follows
• B. Only II follows
• C. Both follow
• D. Neither follows

Answer 1

Answer:

C. Both follow

• Analyzing the Statement: The statement asserts a direct causal relationship: Better street lighting (Cause) leads to a decrease in crime rates (Effect).
• Evaluating Conclusion I (Visibility reduces crime): This follows logically from the statement. If better street lighting—which increases visibility—results in lower crime, then it is a valid inference that visibility acts as a deterrent or a factor that reduces crime.
• Evaluating Conclusion II (Criminals prefer darkness): This also follows logically. If the presence of light reduces crime, it implies that the absence of light (darkness) provides a more conducive environment for criminal activity, thus suggesting a preference or tendency for criminals to operate in darkness.
• Logical Deduction: In syllogistic reasoning of this type, one must determine which conclusions are directly supported by the provided premise. Since both conclusions are logical derivatives of the cause-and-effect relationship established in the statement, both must be considered valid.
• Conclusion Summary: Both conclusions I and II can be logically drawn from the premise provided, confirming that visibility acts as a deterrent and that darkness facilitates criminal behavior.