PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 9
In each of the last ten years, there(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- ATelemarketers convicted of(14 more words not shown)
- BMost complaints of(25 more words not shown)
- CSome fraudulent telemarketers(31 more words not shown)
- DFraudulent telemarketers typically(21 more words not shown)
- EThe majority of(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Few complaints doesn't necessarily mean little fraud. People might not know how to report what happened, or they might be too embarrassed to admit that they were fooled. We should separate being defrauded from telling law enforcement about it.
The passage says both that complaints have been scarce and that telemarketing fraud has become a more serious problem, costing victims millions of dollars a year. There's another possible distinction here: dollars lost aren't the same as the number of victims. A handful of people could each lose a large amount of money. Millions in losses needn't produce millions of complaints.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to make the two observations fit together. My leading prediction is that victims aren't reporting the fraud, perhaps because of embarrassment. We need an explanation for the small number of complaints despite the serious losses. That's different from explaining why police fail to catch offenders after receiving a complaint.
Working the answers
- A
The severity of punishment after conviction doesn't tell us why victims rarely complain. Without an added connection between that punishment and victims' willingness to report, it doesn't explain the mismatch between serious fraud and few complaints.
- B
This could explain why an investigation has trouble identifying the offender. But the complaints B describes have already reached the authorities. We are trying to explain why so few complaints arrive in the first place. Difficulty tracing credit-card fraud doesn't itself tell us that victims decline to report it.
- C
Delayed discovery could delay some complaints. But a delay of a year or two doesn't explain why complaints have stayed scarce throughout a ten-year period: victims could eventually discover the fraud and report it. The fact that the swindlers have left might make recovery harder, but victims could still file complaints.
We don't need an explanation covering every single victim. The problem is that C describes some delayed discoveries without establishing a broad, lasting reason for the low number of reports. E supplies that missing connection much more directly.
- D
This changes where the offenders have to be prosecuted. It doesn't establish that victims refrain from reporting them. An offense can be difficult to prosecute and still generate a complaint; those are separate stages. We would have to add an unsupported claim about victims' willingness to report to make D do the needed work.
- ECorrect
Most victims are inclined not to seek a legal remedy because they are embarrassed. That gives us exactly the missing connection: fraud can happen, cause substantial losses, and still rarely be brought to law enforcement's attention. The low complaint count can reflect people's reluctance to report rather than the absence of a serious problem.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.