Of every 100 burglar alarms police answer, 99 are false alarms. This

Can somebody please explain why the answer is not A?

Hi KV 18,

A is not correct because the two statements do not logically follow.

The statement:

burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries plays which one of the following roles in the argument

Suggests that burglar alarms are BETTER than car alarms because they provide a deterrant

The Answer A:
It justifies placing more restrictions on owners of burglar alarms than on owners of car alarms.


Suggests that burglar alarm users should be penalised more than car alarm users.

Those two statements do not logically flow - because something is better you do not penalise people for using it.

The key thing in this question is just to look at the sections that are relevant. You could make an argument for A if you were analysing the whole passage, but you are not, just one segment.

Hope that helps

James

ANS = C - Police want to fine the owners - why not fine the manufacturers of those alarms. By saying that the B. alarms are better than C alarms, they imply that B alarm accidentally going off is not often. If they go off, it is because of the owners, not bcoz the B.alarms are bad, inefficient. C - Says it is a reason why police do not go to alternates (i.e. not fine the manufacturers.)

However, burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries, so the only acceptable solution. The author is trying to say that even though burglar alarm system causes so much pain to the police with false alarms, it is worth keeping it because it deters burglary if it actually happens. So there is a reason to keep the burglar alarm system and the only "acceptable solution" or alternative is to punish the owners. option C "It provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable one obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms." reflects this line of reasoning and is the best option.

Hello abhimahna souvik101990

After reading the passage and question i kinda had intuition that burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries supporting the main conclusion but because of complexity of option C,i could not understand what explicitly it is saying( specially i thought the word excluding saying opposite of what i thought.
Can you please explain meaning of option C?

Thanks and regards

Of every 100 burglar alarms police answer, 99 are false alarms. This situation causes an enormous and dangerous drain on increasingly scarce public resources. Each false alarm wastes an average of 45 minutes of police time. As a result police are consistently taken away from responding to other legitimate calls for service, and a disproportionate share of police service goes to alarm system users, who are mostly businesses and affluent homeowners. However, burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries, so the only acceptable solution is to fine burglar alarm system owners the cost of 45 minutes of police time for each false alarm their systems generate.

The statement that burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

(A) It justifies placing more restrictions on owners of burglar alarms than on owners of car alarms. - WRONG. "However" can't be used as justifying any context as it is used for an argument that is against(depending on further statements presented) any argument present earlier.

(B) It provides background information needed to make plausible the claim that the number of burglar alarms police are called on to answer is great enough to be a drain on public resources. - WRONG. More or less like A only as it argues for supporting the claim which the statement does not.

(C) It provides a basis for excluding as unacceptable one obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms. - CORRECT. What it supports is what was presented after that statement. So, fining is justified.

(D) It gives a reason why police might be more inclined to respond to burglar alarms than to car alarms. - WRONG. Goes offtrack as it loses focus.

(E) It explains why a disproportionate number of the burglar alarms responded to by police come from alarm systems owned by businesses. - WRONG. Neither it explain nor there is any such thing(disproportionality).

Didn't understand the passage as far as role is concerned but POE helped.

Answer C.

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.