- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:40 am
#35658
Complete Question Explanation
Resolve-#%. The correct answer choice is (A)
Upon first reading, it seems that the increased likelihood of being convicted for car theft might itself
explain the steady decline in automobile thefts during the past five years. However, the question stem
suggests that some other circumstance will account for both elements of the stimulus. Look for an
answer that does not disregard either aspect and possibly suggests how both aspects arose.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If this is true, then previous car thieves
were less likely to be caught since they were no longer driving the stolen car when the police were
notified. As that proportion has decreased, police are more likely to catch thieves red-handed, which
surely increases the likelihood of conviction.
Answer choice (B): The increased use of car alarms might account for the decline in the number
of automobile thefts, but does not explain the increased likelihood of conviction. Additionally, the
fact that people generally ignore car alarms would tend to negate any deterring effect they might
otherwise have.
Answer choice (C): If police departments are forced to devote limited resources to investigating
home burglaries (and presumably away from investigating automobile thefts), why would the
likelihood of conviction increase and the number of thefts decline? This answer undermines an
explanation of the facts above.
Answer choice (D): In contrast to (A), answer choice (D) suggests that catching (and subsequently
convicting) car thieves might be particularly difficult because the primary evidence of the crime is
quickly destroyed. Furthermore, if the market is increasingly lucrative, we cannot easily explain why
the number of thefts has declined.
Answer choice (E): Sentencing only occurs post-conviction. Since the stimulus is about trying
to explain what causes the increased likelihood of conviction, facts regarding events following
conviction are unlikely to be useful. Arguing that sentencing guidelines for teenage car thieves
influences the likelihood of conviction requires an assumption that judges occasionally feel
compelled not to convict adults because they did not want to be forced to impose excessively harsh
sentences on adult offenders. That is an unjustified leap from the evidence we are given.
Resolve-#%. The correct answer choice is (A)
Upon first reading, it seems that the increased likelihood of being convicted for car theft might itself
explain the steady decline in automobile thefts during the past five years. However, the question stem
suggests that some other circumstance will account for both elements of the stimulus. Look for an
answer that does not disregard either aspect and possibly suggests how both aspects arose.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If this is true, then previous car thieves
were less likely to be caught since they were no longer driving the stolen car when the police were
notified. As that proportion has decreased, police are more likely to catch thieves red-handed, which
surely increases the likelihood of conviction.
Answer choice (B): The increased use of car alarms might account for the decline in the number
of automobile thefts, but does not explain the increased likelihood of conviction. Additionally, the
fact that people generally ignore car alarms would tend to negate any deterring effect they might
otherwise have.
Answer choice (C): If police departments are forced to devote limited resources to investigating
home burglaries (and presumably away from investigating automobile thefts), why would the
likelihood of conviction increase and the number of thefts decline? This answer undermines an
explanation of the facts above.
Answer choice (D): In contrast to (A), answer choice (D) suggests that catching (and subsequently
convicting) car thieves might be particularly difficult because the primary evidence of the crime is
quickly destroyed. Furthermore, if the market is increasingly lucrative, we cannot easily explain why
the number of thefts has declined.
Answer choice (E): Sentencing only occurs post-conviction. Since the stimulus is about trying
to explain what causes the increased likelihood of conviction, facts regarding events following
conviction are unlikely to be useful. Arguing that sentencing guidelines for teenage car thieves
influences the likelihood of conviction requires an assumption that judges occasionally feel
compelled not to convict adults because they did not want to be forced to impose excessively harsh
sentences on adult offenders. That is an unjustified leap from the evidence we are given.