Mayor: False alarms from home security systems waste so much valuable

IMO C

plan is to give protection , put fine for repetitive false alarm and save police time .

Option C has an impact on all these factors .

Posted from my mobile device

Mayor: False alarms from home security systems waste so much valuable police time that in many communities police have stopped responding to alarms from homes whose systems frequently produce false alarms. This policy reduces wastage of police time but results in a loss of protection for some residents. To achieve a comparable reduction in wastage without reducing protection for residents, the council has enacted a measure to fine residents for repeated false alarms.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on whether the measure enacted by the council will achieve its goal?

Situation: Police have been responding to false home-security alarms but have ceased to respond to alarms from homes that often have such false alarms. To reduce wastage of police time without compromising residents’ home protection, the council has enacted a new measure that will fine home residents for repeated false alarms.

Reasoning: What fact or occurrence would most reduce the likelihood that the town council's newly enacted measure would achieve its goal, which is to reduce wastage of police time without compromising home protection?
Note that the goal is not to eliminate all wastage of police time or to pay all the costs of it; some random wastage is to be expected. But if many residents deactivated their security alarms (even well-functioning systems) because they wish to avoid being fined, this could reduce the level of home protection for those residents.

A. A fine in the amount planned by the council will not cover the expenses police typically incur when they respond to a false alarm.
Out of scope. The objective is to avoid wastage of time without reducing protection. Hence, incorrect

B. Homes equipped with security systems are far less likely to be broken into than are homes without security systems.
Same reasoning for choice A. Not related to the wastage of time due to false alarm. Hence, incorrect

C. The threat of fines is likely to cause many residents to deactivate their security systems.
If this occurred, it would result in a lower level of home protection for some residents and would mean that the town council's measure would have failed to achieve its goal. Hence, correct

D. The number of home security systems is likely to increase dramatically over the next five years.
This in fact can lead to an increase in false alarms as well. Hence, incorrect

E. Many home security systems have never produced false alarms.
Vague. This does not mean that false alarms won't happen in the future. Hence, incorrect

Understanding the Passage

Police in many communities has stopped responding to alarms from homes whose system frequently goes off because responding to them wastes a lot of valuable time for the police.
This policy affects some residents as they may not get a response from the police, thus experiencing a loss in protection. So, the city council enacted a measure that all residents with repeated false alarms will be fined. This measure will lead to a comparable reduction in wastage of police time but at the same time not reduce protection for the residents.


Pre-thinking

Reduction in wastage of time + No reduction in protection for residents ----> Fine residents for repeated false alarms.

In other words, only residents whose system produces repeated false alarms will be fined.

The Cause & Effect relation here:-

Cause:- Fine residents for repeated false alarms.

Effect:- Reduction in wastage of time + No reduction in protection for residents.


Question Stem:- We need to find a statement which, if true, tells us that fining residents for repeated false alarms will NOT reduce wastage of valuable time and reduce resident protection.

Weakener 1: What if all residents keep their alarms off in order to avoid fines, this would affect their protection and weaken the council's suggestion.

Weakener 2: What if the residents do not have cases of repeated false alarms, then the suggested measure by the council will not help reduce the waste of police time.


Answer choice Analysis

A. A fine in the amount planned by the council will not cover the expenses police typically incur when they respond to a false alarm. INCORRECT

The passage is not concerned about the amount of fine or the expenses. This choice is clearly out of scope.

B. Homes equipped with security systems are far less likely to be broken into than are homes without security systems. INCORRECT

The statement presents a comparison between homes equipped with security systems and homes without a security system. This in no way affects the measure suggested by the council, therefore, this choice is irrelevant.

C. The threat of fines is likely to cause many residents to deactivate their security systems. CORRECT

This choice is directly in line with our pre-thought weakener 1. Therefore, this is the correct choice.

D. The number of home security systems is likely to increase dramatically over the next five years. INCORRECT

This choice presents a statement that may lead to an increase in false alarms. Even if there isn't an increase in the number of home security systems in the next five years, it does not weaken the suggestion made by the council. Thus, this choice is incorrect.

E. Many home security systems have never produced false alarms. INCORRECT

Many means (>2) in GMAT CR. This option choice is vague as we do not know anything about the number of residents whose security systems do not produce false alarms. Also, it cannot be said for certain that false alarms will not happen in the future.

False alarm so time waste of officers
to avoid so PROPOSAK: FINE FOR FALSE ALARM
ASSUMPTION: FALSE ALARM WILL REDUCED AS THERE IS FINE.

In order to avoid fine, owners will deactivate alarm so no fine.
so false alarm wont there but SECURITY OF HOME WILL BE AFFECTED.
SO PROPOSAL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Mayor: False alarms from home security systems waste so much valuable police time that in many communities police have stopped responding to alarms from homes whose systems frequently produce false alarms. This policy reduces wastage of police time but results in a loss of protection for some residents. To achieve a comparable reduction in wastage without reducing protection for residents, the council has enacted a measure to fine residents for repeated false alarms.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on whether the measure enacted by the council will achieve its goal?

A. A fine in the amount planned by the council will not cover the expenses police typically incur when they respond to a false alarm. - Irrelevant to the conclusion drawn.
B. Homes equipped with security systems are far less likely to be broken into than are homes without security systems. - the likelihood of a home getting broken into does not weaken the chances of the success for the policy enacted by the council
C. The threat of fines is likely to cause many residents to deactivate their security systems. - Now, we have a problem here. The goal of the council's plan is to reduce the wastage of policy but not compromise on the safety of the residents. If residents deactivate their alarms as a result of the new policy, they place themselves at greater risk of getting burglarized. We can infer from (C) that the residents risks their own safety as a consequence of the new plan enacted by the council. Hence, (C) is the right answer choice here.
D. The number of home security systems is likely to increase dramatically over the next five years. - Does not weaken the likelihood of success for the city's plan.

E. Many home security systems have never produced false alarms. - Does not weaken the likelihood of success for the city's plan.

B; P; P/C; Conclusion: the council has enacted a measure to fine residents for repeated false alarms (to achieve a comparable reduction in wastage WITHOUT reducing protection for residents) what if the people that actually pull these alarms are little kids and they aren’t incentivized to stop pulling the alarm. What if people stop using the device since they don’t want a fine?

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on whether the measure enacted by the council will achieve its goal?

A. A fine in the amount planned by the council will not cover the expenses police typically incur when they respond to a false alarm.
We don’t care about the expenses police typically incur. We’re trying to see if the fine would achieve (1) comparable reduction in wastage and (2) without reducing protection for residents. This option does neither.

B. Homes equipped with security systems are far less likely to be broken into than are homes without security systems.
Useless background.

C. The threat of fines is likely to cause many residents to deactivate their security systems.
So this would remove the 2nd point, undermining the plan. Winner, winner.

D. The number of home security systems is likely to increase dramatically over the next five years.
But what about the fine? If anything, higher number of systems -> more false alarms. Would this reduce the wastage or not reduce protection? Neither.

E. Many home security systems have never produced false alarms.
This is out of scope. We’re talking specifically about “homes whose systems frequently produce fire alarms.” This is the specific subset of the population we’re focusing on. We don’t care about the systems have never produced false alarms.

egmat Here is an excerpt from the prompt. How do you consider below a weakener while the prompt clearly demonstrates that residents do have cases of repeated false alarms?

Why is D incorrect?

If the number of security systems will increase *dramatically*, wouldn't that imply the number of false alarms will also increase?

The council has two goals: 1. reduce wastage, 2. not reducing protection. Choice C reduces protection and choice D increases wastage. To me, both of them seem to be correct and I can't pick one over the other.

I understand why the correct answer is right, but I have a few clarifying questions on the grammar of the argument/the Official Guide's grammar in an explanation:
-The wording "to achieve a comparable reduction in wastage" is a bit vague... comparable to what?
-Choice E's explanation in the OG says, "Any home-security system that has never produced a false alarm could do so tomorrow, for all kinds of reasons." I realize that you should pick on bigger issues other than a comma on the GMAT/the GMAT is always right, but why is a comma needed to separate "tomorrow" from "for"? Is "for all kinds of reasons" an adverbial modifier?

Many thanks my friend!

Hmm, in a better world, perhaps we could rely on GMAT CR and its OG explanations to model perfect SC grammar and style, but in this world. we definitely cannot. Please don't use the explanations to learn SC. Even the SC explanations are not written by the same people who write the questions!

However, here's my take on your questions:

*Here, "comparable" means "comparable to the baseline we just described." The current plan reduces waste by failing to respond to false alarms. The new plan produces a comparable reduction in waste by penalizing people for producing false alarms. In theory, this allows wastage to be reduced just as much as before (a "comparable reduction") without the side effect of removing anyone's protection.

*As for the comma, keep in mind that in normal English usage, we can place a comma anywhere it would be useful to have a pause. There are far fewer rules about commas than people suspect, and we can't say it's wrong to use a comma just because that comma isn't strictly necessary. In any case, "for all kinds of reasons" is definitely an adverbial modifier (it can't simply modify the noun "tomorrow", since tomorrow isn't FOR any reasons). We don't always need a comma before adverbial modifiers, but this one is perfectly appropriate.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.