#20 - Of every 100 burglar alarms police answer, 99 are

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

This author tells us that 99 out of 100 burglar alarm calls are false alarms, with the false alarms wasting an average of 45 minutes of police time each. The author points out that this takes police away from legitimate calls (this implies that something must be done about this problem). The author then points out that “however, burglar alarms…deter burglaries.” This is a concession to the fact that burglar alarms do serve an important purpose. The author closes with what is presented as the “only acceptable solution”: a fine imposed for false alarms.

This question stem asks what role is played by the reference to alarms’ effectiveness as a deterrent. This is a concession to the fact that they do provide an important service to the public. When the author then concludes that a fine is the only acceptable solution, the author is ruling out more drastic solutions (for example, eliminating burglar alarms entirely).

Only correct answer choice (C) reflects the role played by the statement about burglar alarms. The point that burglar alarms provide a valuable service is meant to say that we can’t just get rid of them. This is the “one obvious alternative” referenced in this answer choice.

[akanshachandra]

Hello! So I chose the answer choice D, because I thought that since it said that burglar systems were effective, they'd be responded too more than car alarms.. I don't understand why C is right? the fact that it says "one obvious alternative", are we supposed to make an inference that they mean that the alternative is "getting rid of it" altogether? It just felt like a big inference to make.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi askanshachandra,

I think the main problem with (D) revolves around the function of the specific sentence being referenced in the question. That language is in the last sentence, "However, burglar alarms…are effective in deterring burglaries.” Prior to that sentence, the author is focusing on a downside to burglar alarms. The sentence beginning "However..." contrasts with the previous sentences, and it offers a concession--it concedes that those alarms have a benefit.

(D) seems to be outside the scope of this argument, so it can't capture the function of that last sentence. The stimulus doesn't talk about which types of alarms police would be more or less likely to respond to--which is the language used in (D). We do know burglar alarms are better deterrents than car alarms, but this is a different than knowing which one police would be most likely to respond to.

The language of (C), however, "It provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable one obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms," better captures the function of the last sentence. Again, the first sentences are about the downsides of burglar alarms, and the last sentence contrasts by conceding that they serve a benefit (deterrence). The stimulus then concludes the only option is to impose a fine. That would be the "only acceptable conclusion" only if the author had ruled out the alternative--after all, we wouldn't have the problem of wasted police resources if there were no burglar alarms. Given that they serve an important role, we shouldn't get rid of them (the obvious alternative)--therefore, the author concludes we should impose a fine.

[andriana.caban]

Hi,

Can you please explain what (C) is saying, in simple terms? Particularly, "It provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable"? In this context, what does provide a basis mean?

I was so confused reading (C) and would appreciate any help, thanks!

[Zach Foreman]

Andriana,
Let's say that these alarms were NOT effective? What could we propose as a solution, since they waste police resources and are not effective? Well, we could ban them, which would free up hundreds of police hours AND not increase crime, since they are not effective.
But, with the information that they are effective, we should rethink the proposal to ban them. Why ban something that is effective, even if it has drawbacks. Therefore, "it provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable one obvious alternative [Namely, an outright ban on burglar alarms] to the proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms." In other words, the fact that burglar alarms are effective rules out banning them which would be an obvious alternative so we are left with the only available alternative to solve the false alarm problem, which is fining false alarms.

[andriana.caban]

Hi Zach,

I'm still a bit confused. I understand why (C) is correct but I don't understand, in simple terms, what it's actually saying because of the complexity in language.

Is C simply saying that the statement in question eliminates an alternative option (like getting rid of fire alarms completely)?

I was confused by the phrase "excluding as unacceptable". Thanks!

[Erik Shum]

Hi Andriana,

I'll reply for Zach here: Your re-phrasing of answer choice (C) is correct (except we're talking about burglar alarms and not fire alarms, but I get what you mean). The "excluding" in "excluding as unacceptable" is a bit redundant.

I might re-phrase answer choice (C) more simply as: The sentence provides a basis for why an alternative option is unacceptable.

[simonsap]

C) "provides a basis" by providing a supporting example (car alarms - are not effective), which is used to contrast against burglar alarms to prove they are effective IN ORDER TO eliminate an alternative proposal (outright ban on burglar alarms)

Getting this right is like looking at an entire switchboard and knowing which switch to look for.