PrepTest 152, Section 4, Question 23
An antitheft device involving an electronic homing beacon(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(14 more words not shown)
- ACar thieves will(19 more words not shown)
- BTypically, the number(20 more words not shown)
- CBefore the invention(15 more words not shown)
- DA large proportion(18 more words not shown)
- EIn most cities(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How can a device in only a small share of cars make theft fall across the city?
We know the beacon helps catch thieves, even experienced ones. One possibility is that a small number of people commit many of the thefts. Imagine a thief stealing ten cars a month. Even if only a small share of cars have beacons, repeatedly stealing cars creates more chances to take one that can be tracked. Catching a few prolific thieves could prevent a large number of later thefts.
Another possibility is fear. Thieves can't detect which particular car has a beacon, so its presence doesn't directly warn them away from that car. But knowing some cars have hidden tracking devices might make stealing cars in general seem riskier. That is a different idea from seeing a device and avoiding that specific vehicle.
What we’re looking for
For this explanation question, either general deterrence or catching a small number of repeat offenders might account for a large effect from limited adoption. We need a connection between those two sizes.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns a thief's caution after stealing a car without knowing it contains a beacon. Being less cautious might help police catch that thief, but we already know the device improves the odds of apprehension. A doesn't explain why tracking devices in a small fraction of cars would produce such a large overall decline. It isn't the general fear-of-stealing prediction, either.
- B
A city could have a below-average theft rate before adoption and still experience either a large decline or no decline afterward. Comparing these cities with other cities doesn't explain the change within them. We need to account for the before-and-after result, not their starting rank.
- C
This gives us a contrast with older antitheft devices and could reinforce that beacons improve apprehension. But that improvement is already given. We still need to explain how a device installed in relatively few cars affects so many thefts. C leaves that scale problem unresolved.
- D
Where the owner lives doesn't tell us how a small number of beacons can have a large effect on thieves operating in the city. The stolen cars could belong to residents or visitors. Without another connection to adoption, apprehension, or repeat offending, that distinction doesn't resolve the puzzle.
- ECorrect
A few experienced thieves account for most thefts. That fits the repeat-offender explanation: each of those thieves has many opportunities to steal a tracked car, and removing even a few from circulation can prevent many later thefts. The device is especially useful because its improved apprehension rate applies even to experienced thieves. We don't need every thief to be caught or all theft to end. Concentration of theft among a few people explains how a small adoption rate can produce a large decline.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.