rightday1121 wrote:
People who drive cars with tinted windows are twice as likely to be stopped for speeding by the police as are people driving cars without tinted windows. The only valid explanation for this phenomenon is that people who drive cars with tinted windows are much more likely to speed than other drivers.
If the statements above are true, which of the following can be properly inferred from them?
A) People who speed while driving cars with tinted windows have a chance of being stopped by the police no higher than that had by drivers of other cars.
B) The probability that a person stopped for speeding whose car has tinted windows was speeding exceeds the probability that a person stopped for speeding without tinted windows was speeding.
C) People who drive cars with tinted windows are not unjustifiably stopped by the police more often than are drivers of other cars.
D) A person stopped by police for speeding is more likely to have been driving a car with tinted windows than a car without tinted windows.
E) Any police officer's disproportionately pulling over for speeding cars with tinted windows is offset by a police offer's disproportionately pulling over for speeding cars without tinted windows.
My analysis is:
The argument states that there is a positive correlation between people who drive TW (Tinted Window) cars and drivers who are likely to speed. Also, people who drive TW cars are twice as likely to be stopped for speeding
ONLY because of the stated correlation. (The basic inference is that there is no other factor than the correlation that is causing these TW car drivers to be stopped MORE OFTEN for speeding than the other drivers)
Choice A: It says that P(driver speeding with TW car) <= P(driver speeding without TW car). This does cover the scenario that the probability must be equal, but this choice is a stretch and states that the driver with TW car can even have less likelihood of being caught due to speeding. INCORRECT
Choice E: This choice is focussed on the inference derived from the word "
ONLY" that I mentioned in the argument's summary, stating that there are no biases because of the disproportionate chances of getting pulled over for speeding for either group of cars, viz. TW cars and Non-TW cars, and that they BALANCE each other out; hence, there is no bias and the only cause of the stated observation is the correlation. CORRECT - this choice suites well the logic of the argument