A was based on assumptions, but B offered the same weight of assumptions. The way I understood B was: car alarms deterred a number of thefts altogether (hence, the number of thefts declined), yet people ignoring those alarms enabled the completion of actual thefts. Kinda like stealing Louvre jewels in the middle of a day... Aren't those valid assumptions?
A is actually saying the same thing in the stimulus, just in an obscure way. There may be less thieves abandoning cars because they are being caught before they can abandon them, hence conviction rates going up.
But I only got this one right because of POE and all the other answers being contradictory.
for RRE questions, is it suggested to choose the answer and move on as soon as we read one that makes sense or should we always read them all to be sure to fully execute POE? Just wondering for time
@Catpop (A) supports both facts in the stimulus: There are fewer thefts and (A) notes there are fewer thieves, which explains fewer thefts. And as (A) notes that more thieves are hanging on to the cars they've stolen, rather than abandon them, the thieves are therefore more likely to be caught and convicted (as the stimulus reports) because they can be connected to the stolen vehicle.
did anyone else not think this was a discrepancy? Car thefts decreasing makes sense if conviction rates are higher. Its just crazy that they made an answer choice that is correct while making it more confusing lol
I thought (B) is saying the propensity results in the thief's ignoring of the alarm, like the thief (who perform thefts everyday and take such activities as normal life) observed the propensity and take the alarm ring as something normal, yet it sounds to other people something cautionary. So the thief who drives the car doesn't notice the alarm while the people passing by noticed, and the thief then being found out and convicted...
got it right, but the stim confused me like crazy. Why would I need to explain it? It seems like the stim explains itself.
If people are more likely to be caught stealing a car now than five years ago, then yeah... no DUH rates of car theft have declined?
To say that "it's more likely now than it was five years ago that someone who steals a car will be convicted of doing so" means that the rate of punishment has increased. If the rate of punishment for stealing cars has increased, then it makes sense that less cars are being stolen.
WHY does this phenomenon need an explanation? It explains itself?
I think this one is confusing just because the stimulus doesn't really present a problem on its own. If cops are catching and getting convictions on more car thieves then there are logically less thefts. So you don't really have a logical gap to fill, makes it difficult to find an AC that is really just adding to the stim not filling a gap there.
Okay so for those confused on this one I wanted to offer an alternative explanation that I used to get the right answer here.
The trick with A is that it is worded horribly and confusingly such that if you are rushing through answer choices you can and will misread it (i did at first).
A says there are fewer car thieves which as said we must assume if true means less thefts. We can kinda apply the economic idea of ceteris paribus here (keep all else equal). All else equal would mean the remaining thief's don't change their car stealing habits (increase or decrease). So all else equal if there are fewer thieves and no change in habits there is less car thefts.
The second part is tricky. What it is saying in simple terms is that more thieves are staying in cars for a longer period of time such that owners are more often noticing they are stealing the cars. In the past a larger proportion of thieves would abandon cars sooner before owners detected them (this is sorta the contrapositive of the second statement).
Thus considering 2 we can conclude that thieves are being detected by owners more often as they are remaining in vehicles until owners notice more often then in the past.
I actually quickly eliminated A because I thought it was illogical to assume that the number of THIEFS has decreased because the number of THEFTS has decreased. There could be one car thief in the world who is doing all the stealing and the number of thefts can still change. Eventually after eliminating the rest of the answer choices, I returned to A and also remembered that the question stem states "if true".
5
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
156 comments
RRE questions seriously confuse me ugh
I think the written answer explanations were easier to follow than the video.
RRE is proving to be the most difficult question type for me... I should drill more of these so I better understand RRE's patterns.
A was based on assumptions, but B offered the same weight of assumptions. The way I understood B was: car alarms deterred a number of thefts altogether (hence, the number of thefts declined), yet people ignoring those alarms enabled the completion of actual thefts. Kinda like stealing Louvre jewels in the middle of a day... Aren't those valid assumptions?
A is actually saying the same thing in the stimulus, just in an obscure way. There may be less thieves abandoning cars because they are being caught before they can abandon them, hence conviction rates going up.
But I only got this one right because of POE and all the other answers being contradictory.
for RRE questions, is it suggested to choose the answer and move on as soon as we read one that makes sense or should we always read them all to be sure to fully execute POE? Just wondering for time
@Catpop (A) supports both facts in the stimulus: There are fewer thefts and (A) notes there are fewer thieves, which explains fewer thefts. And as (A) notes that more thieves are hanging on to the cars they've stolen, rather than abandon them, the thieves are therefore more likely to be caught and convicted (as the stimulus reports) because they can be connected to the stolen vehicle.
A being the answer actually ruined my day. lol. HOW
- It doesn't even address the conviction of the crime rising
what is this
Good God, this question type is by far the worst and it's killing me.
The answer choices for this question were... professionally speaking... cheeks
did anyone else not think this was a discrepancy? Car thefts decreasing makes sense if conviction rates are higher. Its just crazy that they made an answer choice that is correct while making it more confusing lol
I thought (B) is saying the propensity results in the thief's ignoring of the alarm, like the thief (who perform thefts everyday and take such activities as normal life) observed the propensity and take the alarm ring as something normal, yet it sounds to other people something cautionary. So the thief who drives the car doesn't notice the alarm while the people passing by noticed, and the thief then being found out and convicted...
Totally wrong understanding of the words.
got it right, but the stim confused me like crazy. Why would I need to explain it? It seems like the stim explains itself.
If people are more likely to be caught stealing a car now than five years ago, then yeah... no DUH rates of car theft have declined?
To say that "it's more likely now than it was five years ago that someone who steals a car will be convicted of doing so" means that the rate of punishment has increased. If the rate of punishment for stealing cars has increased, then it makes sense that less cars are being stolen.
WHY does this phenomenon need an explanation? It explains itself?
I dont understand the reasoning of A.
cant lie, i almost obliterated my laptop screen cause of this one
I got it right but 3 mins and 31 seconds over-time because I have a need to POE even though I've identified an answer (just in case)
i fear im cooked ..
[This comment was deleted.]
I ended up getting it right (a little more time than I would have preferred) but that took me wayy too long
These you try questions are getting worse and worse
Not hitting my target time with these because every question feels like I should be doing POE
I think this one is confusing just because the stimulus doesn't really present a problem on its own. If cops are catching and getting convictions on more car thieves then there are logically less thefts. So you don't really have a logical gap to fill, makes it difficult to find an AC that is really just adding to the stim not filling a gap there.
Okay so for those confused on this one I wanted to offer an alternative explanation that I used to get the right answer here.
The trick with A is that it is worded horribly and confusingly such that if you are rushing through answer choices you can and will misread it (i did at first).
A says there are fewer car thieves which as said we must assume if true means less thefts. We can kinda apply the economic idea of ceteris paribus here (keep all else equal). All else equal would mean the remaining thief's don't change their car stealing habits (increase or decrease). So all else equal if there are fewer thieves and no change in habits there is less car thefts.
The second part is tricky. What it is saying in simple terms is that more thieves are staying in cars for a longer period of time such that owners are more often noticing they are stealing the cars. In the past a larger proportion of thieves would abandon cars sooner before owners detected them (this is sorta the contrapositive of the second statement).
Thus considering 2 we can conclude that thieves are being detected by owners more often as they are remaining in vehicles until owners notice more often then in the past.
Hopefully this helps!
I actually quickly eliminated A because I thought it was illogical to assume that the number of THIEFS has decreased because the number of THEFTS has decreased. There could be one car thief in the world who is doing all the stealing and the number of thefts can still change. Eventually after eliminating the rest of the answer choices, I returned to A and also remembered that the question stem states "if true".