#23 - An antitheft device involving an electronic homing

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[brianpark]

I found this question to be particularly difficult and have trouble understanding why answer choice E most helps to explain the dramatic drop in auto thefts.

I chose C, which states that before the invention of the homing beacon, automobile thieves who stole cars containing anti theft devices were rarely apprehended.I interpreted this to mean that the low chances of being caught prior to the invention of the homing device served as an incentive for car theft.

The passage states that the presence of the homing device greatly increases the odds of apprehending even the most experienced car thieves. This fact, coupled with answer choice C suggests that car thieves would be more hesitant to steal due to the increased risk of capture. I felt that this adequately and realistically explained the drop in auto thefts. The only issue I could identity was that I reached too far in assuming that thieves would be aware of the increased risk of capture due to the new homing devices.

Regardless, I felt it was a much better answer than E, which says that in most cities the majority of car thefts were committed by a few very experienced car thieves. I did not and still cannot see what impact this would have on the dramatic drop in auto thefts.

[Jon Denning]

Hey Brian - thanks for posting, and welcome to the Forum!

Tricky question here for sure, but let me see if I can clear things up for you

Since it's a Resolve the Paradox question, let's start by precisely identifying what the paradox in the stimulus is. First, we're told that this new, undetectable antitheft device greatly increases the odds of catching even the most experienced thieves; in other words, steal a car with this device inside—which you can't know in advance—and you're taking a substantially greater risk than if you stole a car without it. Second, we're told that even though most people don't use the device, where there's some chance that it is being used (cities where some people are using it) auto thefts have dropped dramatically.

And there's the conundrum: why have auto thefts dropped so much in places where there's a possibility, however slim, that a thief inadvertently (unwittingly) steals a car with this device and is thus far likelier to be caught? How is this invisible and rare device proving to be such an effective deterrent?

So this is really about risk management. Thieves are clearly hedging their bets, so to speak, by not taking any chances (however remote) where they know they're most likely to steal an "unlucky" (deviced) car, and thereby get apprehended.

Answer choice (C) does nothing to resolve this issue, because the rate of apprehension before the device is irrelevant to the change in behavior after the device goes into use. In fact, if anything it makes the paradox even greater! I'll explain. If historically most people who stole cars with antitheft devices have gotten away with it, and a new antitheft device gets introduced (and not in any widespread/mainstream way), what's the likely response? Sudden concern and a huge change in behavior? No way! Quite the opposite: "Oh how cute, a new antitheft measure. Been here before...silly cops." Confidence doesn't lead to a dramatic change in practice at the first sign of familiar trouble, but rather encourages someone to expect the same outcome they've always gotten and proceed accordingly.

(C) would have been a far better answer if it had said basically the opposite of what it tells us: "In the past when antitheft devices have been used, there has always been a high, and well-documented, apprehension rate." Now that would explain why thieves are so timid in the potential presence of this new one!

So what about (E)? Consider what it would mean if only a few very experienced car thieves—meaning they're good at getting away with it and really know what they're doing—commit the majority of car thefts, and suddenly in a few scattered cities a new, undetectable, extremely-problematic (for the thief) device gets introduced. What would an experienced thief do in the presence of such a threat? Continue to steal cars in those areas same as before? Doubt it. Instead, they'd cut their losses and find other activities to engage in, or target areas where the chances of encountering that new device are lower (or non-existent). And that in turn explains why cities with owners using the device have seen a decrease in thefts.

Again, tricky question with some challenging answer choices, but hopefully that helps you make more sense of it!

[brianpark]

That cleared it up completely, thank you John.

[Lsat180Please]

Hi Jon! I really appreciated your explanation of this problem. I found myself stuck between C and E as well. My problem with both answers was that they required assumptions -- assuming that the experienced car thieves would stop stealing after the introduction of this device. Also, I did not like that the answer said "in most cities" because most does not indicate all. So we do not know that the cities where the auto theft devices have been introduced and the theft rates have been lowered are necessarily the same cities that the answer choice refers to... I am probably way overthinking this question, but I seem to run into similar issues whenever I encounter paradox questions because I find that the answer requires assumptions to solve the paradox completely. Do you have any tips for paradox questions and when to make assumptions? Also, how to choose between two answers that both seem to require assumptions?

thanks so much!

[Ssouki]

Hello,

Can someone please explain to me question 23 in PT86; An antitheft device involving..? I am struggling to eliminate A, C, and D. I do not get why E is the correct answer among them.


Thank you!
Sara

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi Sara!

I have moved your question to the thread discussing this topic. Please review Jon Denning's explanation and let us know if that helps!

[Adam Tyson]

Ssouki, I'm hoping that Jon's explanation helped you out here, but just in case you are in the same boat as LSAT180 I'll add my two cents to help you both out.

Let's dispose of answer C first. As Jon points out, it not only doesn't help resolve the issue here, it makes it worse. With no outside assumptions needed, why would a low apprehension rate in the past have anything to do with a drop in auto theft now? Nothing about this answer explains the recent drop in theft, not without some imaginative outside help. I could spin a story to assist it, and that story would go like this: the thieves are cocky because they never get caught, so they keep doing what they have always done, but this new device is so awesome that they get caught in record numbers, arrested, convicted, and imprisoned, drastically reducing the number of car thieves on the streets, and spreading the word to those that remain in town to give it up because the risk of getting caught has gotten way too high. That is WAY too much imagination and help to give to an answer choice! An answer that needs that much help is never a good answer. In addition, I could spin an entirely different story, which goes like this: the odds of apprehension were always low, maybe 1%, so the thieves keep stealing, and even if the odds triple to 3% they still think it's worth the risk, so they keep stealing. The theft rates don't change. This answer could go either way, and so there is no resolution, just head-scratching!

LSAT180 is right that answer E doesn't full resolve the problem, because the overlap between the cities with lower theft rates and the cities with the device in use might have only a tiny overlap. If owners in 51 out of 100 cities use the device, and if theft rates have dropped in 51 of those same 100 cities, it could be that only two cities have both lower theft and the device in use. So the answer is imperfect.

But the instructions say nothing about selecting perfect answers, do they? They say to pick the best answer. And the stem here doesn't ask which answer completely explains the paradox, but asks only which answer would most help. So we need to set our standard a little lower, and just look for an answer that makes us go "oh, okay, I can see how that might help." If the risk of apprehension has gone way up, and most thefts are by experienced thieves (rather than impulsive thefts by joyriding amateurs, for example), it helps at least a little to explain the drop in the theft rate. Not much imagination is required to get there, and certainly not as much of a story as answer C requires. In fact, let's try two different stories for answer E to illustrate the point:

Story 1: word has gotten out about the device, and the thieves decide not to take the risk. Theft goes down.
Story 2: either word has not gotten out, or else the thieves take their chances anyway, and either way they keep trying to steal cars and get caught at a higher rate than before. Theft goes down.

Both stories lead to at least some resolution of the paradox. It makes sense either way that theft has decreased. That's what we want to see happen if we are forced to make assumptions or employ our imaginations (which is something we don't want to do if we don't have to).

Keep it simple, keep outside assumptions to a minimum, and don't look for perfect answers, but only the best answer of the 5 presented. If you find yourself having to defend your answer choice, it's probably wrong, because the right answers stand on their own pretty well.

[Franny_i]

Hello. I read the above explanation regarding answer choice E. While I agree with the reasoning, my issue (and likely why I got the answer wrong) is that assuming the very experienced car thief becomes aware that the devices are floating around and chooses to avoid the action is "adding" in outside information no? I thought that was always a no go. Any thoughts?

[Brook Miscoski]

Franny,

The stimulus gives you:

(1) Device does not directly deter theft because it is undetectable;
(2) Device improves the odds of catching even experienced car thieves;
(3) A small percentage of car owners installed the device;
(4) Car thefts dropped dramatically.

We are asked to explain how we got to (4).

Answer choice (E) states that most car thefts are committed by "a very few" experienced car thieves. The only thing that is required to understand choice (E) is careful reference to the stimulus.

(1) Those few thieves cannot detect the device;
(2) More of them are caught now (and the LSAT instructions say we have to use common sense...this means they get incarcerated);
(3) Since only a very few thieves commit most of the thefts, it doesn't matter that only a small percentage of car owners installed the device--the same thieves that would steal other cars are stealing those cars too;
(4) The device reduces thefts by specific deterrence (or in pre 1L language, incarceration).

You don't need to come up with more. Since (E) requires only the commonsense association of catching thieves with stopping theft and the commonsense fact that the small percentage of car owners should not be expected to have a unique set of thieves [they experience, more or less, the average], (E) is the clearly correct choice.

(C) is completely useless because it offers no way to understand how this device is accomplishing anything.