The argument highlights that the satellite-based system is highly effective, with a 90% recovery rate, and benefits everyone by making it impossible for thieves to identify which cars have it. On the other hand, competing systems like alarms and steering wheel locks merely encourage thieves to steal other cars, and stolen cars with these devices are rarely recovered.
To find the most logical conclusion, we should look for an option that follows from the given premises.
Evaluating the Answer Choices:
(A) Suggests that insurance companies should give the same discount for any protective system. This contradicts the argument, which states that only the satellite system is truly effective, while the others merely displace crime.
(B) Argues that loud sirens shouldn’t be allowed because people ignore them. While this may be true, the argument does not discuss whether sirens are annoying or ignored—it focuses on effectiveness in car recovery.
(C) Suggests that owners should advertise the satellite system on their cars. However, this would make it easier for thieves to avoid those cars, undermining the system's deterrent effect.
(D) Suggests that thieves should steal cars with alarms or steering wheel bars. While this follows the logic that those cars are less likely to have the satellite system, the argument does not advocate for thieves—it’s about what insurance companies should do.
(E) Suggests that insurance companies should offer lower or no discounts for the ineffective sirens and steering wheel systems. This aligns with the argument's key point: only the satellite system meaningfully increases car recovery, so insurance companies should differentiate their incentives accordingly.
Best Answer:
(E) Insurance companies should give less of a discount, or no discount at all, to the siren and steering wheel systems because they aren’t as effective as the relay system.
This conclusion logically follows from the premise that only the satellite-based system significantly improves stolen car recovery rates.