Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Police statistics have shown that automobile antitheft devices reduce the risk of car theft, but a statistical study of automobile theft by the automobile insurance industry claims that cars equipped with antitheft devices are, paradoxically, more likely to be stolen than cars that are not so equipped. Which one of the following, if true, does the most to resolve the apparent paradox? (A) Owners of stolen cars almost invariably report the theft immediately to the police but tend to delay notifying their insurance company, in the hope that the vehicle will be recovered. (B) Most cars that are stolen are not equipped with antitheft devices, and most cars that are equipped with antitheft devices are not stolen. (C) The most common automobile antitheft devices are audible alarms, which typically produce ten false alarms for every actual attempted theft. (D) Automobile owners who have particularly theft-prone cars and live in areas of greatest incidence of car theft are those who are most likely to have antitheft devices installed. (E) Most automobile thefts are the work of professional thieves against whose efforts antitheft devices offer scant protection.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Option D resolves the paradox by linking antitheft device installation to high-risk theft areas.

Step by step solution

01

Analyze the Paradox

The paradox presented is that antitheft devices supposedly reduce the risk of car theft, yet statistics show cars with these devices are stolen more often than those without. We need to find an explanation that resolves this contradiction.
02

Evaluate Option A

This option states that car owners notify the police of a theft immediately but delay informing their insurance company. This doesn't directly address why cars with antitheft devices are stolen more frequently, so it doesn't resolve the paradox.
03

Evaluate Option B

This option mentions that most stolen cars are not equipped with antitheft devices, which seems to support the police's statistics rather than resolve the paradox. Additionally, it doesn't explain why equipped cars are stolen more often.
04

Evaluate Option C

This explains that audible alarms, a type of antitheft device, produce many false alarms. However, it doesn't address why cars with devices are stolen more often than those without.
05

Evaluate Option D

This option suggests that people with cars prone to theft and living in high-theft areas are more likely to install antitheft devices. This could explain the statistics if these cars are targeted more frequently, despite having antitheft devices.
06

Evaluate Option E

This option claims most thefts are by professionals who can bypass antitheft devices, suggesting these devices might not be effective against professional thieves. However, it doesn't address the correlation between more theft of equipped cars and device presence as well as option D.
07

Conclusion - Selected Option

Option D best resolves the paradox by explaining that high-theft-risk car owners are more likely to install antitheft devices. Hence, those cars are statistically more likely to be stolen, aiding in resolving the paradox.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Logical Reasoning
Logical reasoning is a crucial part of the LSAT practice, especially when dealing with complex arguments and paradoxes. In logical reasoning sections, you'll be presented with a statement or passage followed by a question that requires you to understand and analyze the given information.
The objective is to use logic to evaluate arguments, identify assumptions, and draw valid conclusions. This skill is essential not only for the LSAT but also for critical tasks in law where evaluating arguments is vital.
Logical reasoning involves breaking down the passage into clear, digestible parts and considering each part's role in the argument. It is also about detecting any hidden premises or misleading conclusions that might be presented.
In this exercise, understanding the logical paradox that antitheft devices should reduce theft, yet statistical evidence shows the opposite, is part of the challenge. Analyzing the presented options requires a logical approach to identify which explanation could rationally resolve the paradox.
Critical Thinking Skills
Critical thinking skills are pivotal for anyone preparing for the law school admission test. This involves evaluating information, identifying biases, and considering various perspectives to reach a sound judgment.
When confronting a paradox like in this exercise, critical thinking skills help you go beyond surface-level readings. You must assess why two seemingly contradictory statistics could both be true and what underlying factors might reconcile them.
  • Recognize the components of an argument - Identify premises, conclusions, and any implicit assumptions.
  • Evaluate the credibility of the evidence - Consider the source, context, and validity of the information provided.
  • Make reasoned judgments - Consider all the given options and decide which resolves the issue most logically.
In the context of the exercise, assessing each option critically reveals that Option D recognizes high-theft-risk areas as a critical factor in why cars with antitheft devices may be stolen more frequently.
Paradox Resolution
Resolving paradoxes is an interesting and vital part of logical reasoning tests like the LSAT. A paradox occurs when two facts or statements appear contradictory, yet somehow both are true.
In this exercise, the paradox is that cars with antitheft devices seem more likely to be stolen. To resolve this, we must explore circumstances where both the police statistics and the insurance study could be correct.
Good paradox resolution involves finding a scenario or explanation that accounts for both claims without contradiction. In the exercise's context, this entails understanding that people with a higher risk of theft, due to location or type of car, are more inclined to use antitheft devices. This explanation aligns with both sets of statistics, resolving the paradox.
Law School Admission Test
The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is a standardized test that assesses skills crucial for success in law school. Among these are logical reasoning, critical thinking, and the ability to resolve complex problems.
The LSAT is structured to test these skills through sections such as logical reasoning, analytical reasoning, and reading comprehension. Each section presents unique challenges that require the application of sound reasoning and analytical skills.
Preparing for the LSAT involves honing these skills through practice exercises, such as evaluating paradoxes. Understanding how these exercises are structured helps applicants develop the necessary skills to excel on test day and in their future legal careers.
Engaging with paradox exercises sharpens your ability to untangle complicated scenarios and uncover truths, a valuable skill in both legal studies and practice.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

If \(\mathrm{H}\) 's session is scheduled as the next session after U's session, which one of the following could be true about H's session and U's session? (A) U's session is scheduled for Monday, and H's session is scheduled for Tuesday. (B) U's session is scheduled for Thursday, and H's session is scheduled for Friday. (C) They are both scheduled for Tuesday. (D) They are both scheduled for Thursday. (E) They are both scheduled for Friday.

Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken an argument of opponents of rDNA technology? (A) New safety procedures developed by rDNA researchers make it impossible for genetically altered microorganisms to escape from laboratories. (B) A genetically altered microorganism accidentally released from a laboratory is successfully contained. (C) A particular rDNA-engineered microorganism introduced into an ecosystem attracts predators that keep its population down. (D) Genetically altered organisms designed to process sewage into methane cannot survive outside the waste treatment plant. (E) A specific hereditary disease that has plagued humankind for generations is successfully eradicated.

Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals. The explanation offered above would be more persuasive if which one of the following were true? (A) Many street crimes, such as drug dealing, are extremely lucrative and those committing them can afford expensive private lawyers. (B) Most prosecutors are not competent to handle cases involving highly technical financial evidence and have more success in prosecuting cases of robbery or simple assault. (C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading. (D) The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is no greater for publicly defended than for privately defended defendants. (E) Juries, out of sympathy for the victims of crimes, are much more likely to convict defendants accused of violent crimes than they are to convict defendants accused of "victimless" crimes or crimes against property.

Which one of the following studies would provide support for Rubinstein's claims? (A) a study that indicated that many members of the commercial elite in nineteenth-century London had insignificant holdings of real property (B) a study that indicated that, in the nineteenth century, industrialists from the north of England were in fact a target for working-class people (C) a study that indicated that, in nineteenth-century Britain, probate values of goods for sale were not as high as probate values of cash assets (D) a study that indicated that the wealth of nineteenth-century British industrialists did not appear to be significantly greater when the full value of their real property holdings was actually considered (E) a study that indicated that at least some members of the official governing elite in nineteenth-century Britain owned more real property than had previously been thought to be the case

All people residing in the country of Gradara approve of legislation requiring that certain hazardous wastes be disposed of by being burned in modern high- temperature incinerators. However, waste disposal companies planning to build such incinerators encounter fierce resistance to their applications for building permits from the residents of every Gradaran community that those companies propose as an incinerator site. Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the residents' simultaneously holding both of the positions ascribed to them? (A) High-temperature incineration minimizes the overall risk to the human population of the country from the wastes being disposed of, but it concentrates the remaining risk in a small number of incineration sites. (B) High-temperature incineration is more expensive than any of the available alternatives would be, and the higher costs would be recovered through higher product prices. (C) High-temperature incineration will be carried out by private companies rather than by a government agency so that the government will not be required to police itself. (D) The toxic fumes generated within a high-temperature incinerator can be further treated so that all toxic residues from a properly operating incinerator are solids. (E) The substantial cost of high-temperature incineration can be partially offset by revenue from sales of electric energy generated as a by-product of incineration.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free