Logical Reasoning

PT7 · S1 · Q25 Police statistics have shown

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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.

Given that

Police statistics show that antitheft devices reduce the risk of car theft.

Why is it that

An insurance industry study finds cars with antitheft devices are more likely to be stolen than cars without them?

Evaluate

This paradox feels like a familiar theme in Anti-Causal arguments:

- given that sunscreen is supposed to prevent sunburns, how come people that wear sunscreen get more burns than those who don't?

- given that bike lanes are supposed to make it safer for bikers, how come roads with bike lanes have more biker accidents than those without?

- given that cops are supposed to reduce crime, how come the cities with the most cops have the most crime?

All of these mysteries stop being so mysterious when you re-sequence the order of events: - some people are more vulnerable to sunburns (they have paler skin or spend more time outside), and so they are the ones most likely to use sunscreen. - some bikes are really dangerous for bikers, and so those roads are the ones that get bike lanes. - some cities are more besieged by crime, and so those cities get assigned more cops.

Goal

Similarly, it's possible they'll resolve this paradox by saying certain cars are more likely to be stolen (people want to steal a BMW, not my ugly ass Prius), and so the BMW driver gets an antitheft device, whereas I let the ugly exterior / dirty interior of my car serve as my antitheft device.

The antitheft device makes someone less likely than would otherwise be to try stealing the BMW, but they're still more likely to try stealing that guarded BMW than to try stealing my unguarded Prius.

25.

Which one of the following, if true, does the most to resolve the apparent paradox?

  1. Owners of stolen cars almost

    No Impact

    This provides a distinction between police statistics and insurance statistics that relates to how promptly they would find out that a vehicle was stolen. But it provides no distinction between cars with vs. without antitheft devices, and that's the distinction we're trying to explain.

    5% picked this

  2. Most cars that are stolen

    No Impact

    The fact that most stolen cars don't have antitheft devices is a raw number fact. It doesn't change the fact that cars with antitheft devices are more likely to be stolen. If we're trying to explain why taller people are more likely to be President, it doesn't change anything to say "most tall people aren't President". Similarly, saying "most women aren't harassed at work" does nothing to change the statement that "women are more likely to be harassed at work than are men." The final sentence is saying something akin to 10% of cars without antitheft devices get stolen vs. 20% of cars with antitheft devices get stolen We need to explain the higher rate of theft for cars with antitheft devices, and this answer provides no explanatory mechanism.

    2% picked this

  3. The most common automobile antitheft

    No Impact

    If anything, this would seem to cheat the background fact. Someone might look at this answer and try to say, "antitheft devices don't work because everyone just assumes it's a false alarm". But first of all, the background fact tells us that they DO work. Secondly, it would be enough for us to show that an anti-theft device isn't helping that car to avoid being stolen. We need to explain why cars with such devices are worse off, whey they're more likely to be stolen.

    5% picked this

  4. Correct

    Automobile owners who have particularly

    Why this is right

    This is like our prediction. People end up getting an anti-theft device precisely because they are already starting at a much higher risk of auto theft. So even though the device lowers their risk from what it was, a BMW on the southside of Philly with an anti-theft device is still more likely to be stolen than a Prius in Santa Monica without an anti-theft device.

    Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    86% picked this

  5. Most automobile thefts are the

    Cheats Paradox

    Saying devices offer scant protection against most thieves undercuts the police finding, which says that antitheft devices do successfully discourage theft. It also fails to explain why cars with devices would be stolen more often rather than about as often.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free