PT9.S4.Q20 - Of every 100 burglar alarms

Comments

• 3 Likes

  JustDoIt Alum Member ⭐

  April 2017 3112 karma

  Hi!

  This is a great question. I feel like we can learn a lot from this question because it is incredibly abstract. Anyways…here is my explanation.

  Let’s start with the basics. What is the fundamental purpose of this statement? It is a premise for the conclusion. In fact, it is the conclusion’s only support, because everything else is context. This alone is enough to get the right answer, but let’s dive deeper.

  What is this statement actually doing? What role does it play in the argument? It demonstrating that, even though burglar alarms suck, they still serve a purpose. What purpose is that? The burglar alarms are an effective deterrent. So we have two implied alternatives (remember, our job is not to be critical here even though this is a terrible argument; our job is to just describe the role the statement plays in the argument). Option 1: keep the alarms in place (which is what the argument is seemingly advocating for considering they are effective deterrents). Option 2: get rid of burglar alarms since they are a waste of resources (this is what is implied). Now the author of this argument is implying that we should not do Option 2 because despite Option 1’s costly efforts, Option 1 actually prevents people from burglarizing homes. In other words, the author is justifying the unacceptability of Option 2 to support the conclusion for fining whoever’s house initiates a false alarm.

  I think another key here is that the alarms may not be false. The alarms are possibly initiated by someone attempting to break in, and when the police get there, they are gone. So they may appear to be false but they actually could be doing their job. If this is the case, it also justifies Option 1 because it is providing evidence that the burglar alarms are actually an effective deterrent.

  Hope this helps!
• LSATSurvivor Alum Member

  May 2018 228 karma

  Does not understand the first half of the language used in AC C. @@
• LSATSurvivor Alum Member

  May 2018 228 karma

  Does C means the sentence provides support to the conclusion by excluding the obvious alternative?
• 2 Likes

  thisissparta Alum Member

  May 2018 edited May 2018 1363 karma

  @LSATSurvivor said:
  Does C means the sentence provides support to the conclusion by excluding the obvious alternative?

  Hey there!

  I'll break up answer choice C and try to explain each component in detail:

  Part I: "It provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable an obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners"

  "Provides a basis" implies that the first half of the last sentence (in the stimulus) gives us some reason. Some reason for what? A reason for excluding an "obvious alternative" as unacceptable. In other words, there is an obvious alternative which is rendered to be unacceptable based on a reason given by (the first half of) the stimulus' last sentence.

  Now, what exactly is this "obvious alternative"? It's the alternative which suggests that burglar alarms, because of the unnecessary havoc that they this cause (giving false alarms 99% of the time), should be removed all together.

  How exactly does the passage's last sentence remove this "obvious alternative" from consideration? Or, how does it "provide a basis for excluding"? Well, by stating that alarm systems are actually effective in deterring burglaries. In other words, as per the last sentence of the passage, the installation of an alarm system preemptively deters burglars from breaking into homes, and therefore cannot (and should not) be removed from houses. This is the primary role of the statement within the context of the argument.

  Hope this helps!
• 1 Like

  LSATSurvivor Alum Member

  May 2018 228 karma

  omg, thanks a lot. This is extremely helpful!!!