Question

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

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

Step-by-step solution

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Key concepts

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.