PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 14
The number of automobile thefts has declined steadily(29 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- AAlthough there are(31 more words not shown)
- BCar alarms are(32 more words not shown)
- CAn upsurge in(20 more words not shown)
- DBecause of the(24 more words not shown)
- EThere are more(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Fewer cars are being stolen, and a car thief now faces a greater chance of conviction. Could those trends be connected?
My first thought is that convictions might keep repeat thieves from stealing again. If more of them end up in prison, there could be fewer thieves available to commit the next theft. That would be one possible connection, though the passage doesn't tell us what sentences they receive.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to explain both facts. Keep the second one precise: the chance of conviction has risen. That doesn't necessarily mean a larger total number of people are convicted, since there are fewer thefts to begin with. Let's look for something that explains the decline in thefts and the improved chance of convicting someone who still steals a car.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This offers a different explanation from my initial thought. There are fewer thieves, which helps explain fewer thefts. Among the thieves who remain, a smaller proportion abandon cars before the owners even realize they're gone.
Why would that matter? If a car is taken and returned or abandoned before the owner notices, the theft might never be reported. If it stays missing long enough to be reported, the police have an opportunity to look for it and connect someone to the theft. A thief found still driving a reported stolen car, for example, is easier to connect to the crime.
That change helps explain the greater chance of conviction. A doesn't promise that every reported theft gets solved; it supplies a reason more thefts could become detectable while fewer thieves account for a lower number of thefts overall.
- B
Ignoring alarms doesn't explain why thieves are now more likely to be convicted. If bystanders pay less attention when an alarm sounds, that seems more likely to hinder detection than improve it. More alarms alone don't solve the problem when the answer says people generally disregard them.
- C
Diverting police resources to home burglaries gives us less reason to expect improved success against car thieves. It doesn't explain either why car thefts fell or why someone committing one now faces a greater chance of conviction.
- D
Quickly breaking a car into parts and sending them to different buyers doesn't explain the improved chance of convicting the thief. It could make a stolen car harder to trace. D also presents a lucrative reason to steal cars, rather than a reason for the decline in thefts.
- E
A lenient sentence is different from a low chance of conviction. A young thief could be convicted and receive a short sentence. E doesn't connect sentencing severity to the increased chance that someone who steals a car will be convicted, and more young thieves doesn't explain the decline in thefts.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.