LR Drill Set 8, Question 1
To prevent household theft, anticrime experts often advocate(41 more words not shown)
The situation described above most(9 more words not shown)
- AHomeowners prefer expensive(4 more words not shown)
- BThe problem of(11 more words not shown)
- CInexpensive options and(5 more words not shown)
- DCriminals are often(11 more words not shown)
- EA relatively small(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A thief can decide a house isn't worth the trouble even if breaking in would still be possible.
That's the distinction these experts are relying on. More lighting might make someone worry about being seen. A deadbolt might add just enough trouble to make the person leave. Neither measure has to turn the house into an impenetrable fortress. The passage explicitly says these measures don't make forced entry significantly harder, yet they often discourage the attempt.
What we’re looking for
For the most-supported answer, I want that modest idea: a fairly small obstacle can be enough to stop someone from trying. We have support for a deterrent working in many cases, not a promise that it will eliminate theft.
Working the answers
- A
We know what the experts recommend, not what homeowners prefer. Homeowners might favor expensive alarms, inexpensive locks, or doing nothing at all. Advice about what can work doesn't tell us which option the people receiving the advice actually want.
- B
Often deterring thieves is a long way from solving household theft. Some thieves might still try to enter, and some households might never adopt the measures. The passage supports a useful precaution, not the disappearance of the problem.
- C
The passage does call the lighting and deadbolts inexpensive and the alarm systems expensive. But it never gives us an equal-effectiveness comparison. The experts might recommend a cheaper option because it works well enough for its price, even if an alarm would sometimes do more. Or the cheap option might work better. We can't decide that comparison from what we're told.
- D
Being deterred doesn't mean being unable to figure out the obstacle. A thief could know perfectly well how to get through a lock and still decide the extra time or risk isn't worth it. The passage concerns a decision not to attempt a theft, not a lack of intelligence.
- ECorrect
The relatively small inconvenience is enough to stop would-be thieves in many cases. That fits the combination the passage gives us: forced entry isn't significantly more difficult, but the measures often deter it anyway. The obstacle doesn't have to make entry impossible to make someone abandon the attempt.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.