Police statistics have shown that automobile antitheft devices reduce

Question

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.

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

(A) Owners of stolen cars almost invariably report the theft immediately to the police but tend to delay notifying their insurance company, in the hope that the vehicle will be recovered.

(B) Most cars that are stolen are not equipped with antitheft devices, and most cars that are equipped with antitheft devices are not stolen.

(C) The most common automobile antitheft devices are audible alarms, which typically produce ten false alarms for every actual attempted theft.

(D) Automobile owners who have particularly theft-prone cars and live in areas of greatest incidence of car theft are those who are most likely to have antitheft devices installed.

(E) Most automobile thefts are the work of professional thieves against whose efforts antitheft devices offer scant protection.

goldeneagle94 · Accepted Answer

hi vaivish,

In "Resolve the apparent paradox" questions, we need to choose an answer that doesn't violate the fact set given in the stimulus.

Statistics  \Rightarrow  Antitheft Devices Reduce risk of car theft.
Insurance  \Rightarrow  Cars w/antitheft more likely to be stolen.

A) Owners of stolen cars almost invariably report the theft immediately to the police but tend to delay notifying their insurance company, in the hope that the vehicle will be recovered. -  This doesn't resolve the given paradox.  
(B) Most cars that are stolen are not equipped with antitheft devices, and most cars that are equipped with antitheft devices are not stolen.  This supports what Police statistics have shown, but not what Insurance industry claims. Its one-sided. 
(C) The most common automobile antitheft devices are audible alarms, which typically produce ten false alarms for every actual attempted theft. Irrelevant. 
(D) Automobile owners who have particularly theft-prone cars and live in areas of greatest incidence of car theft are those who are most likely to have antitheft devices installed.  This offers the right explanation without violating Insurance Industry's claims as well as Police statistics. 
(E) Most automobile thefts are the work of professional thieves against whose efforts antitheft devices offer scant protection.  If professionals are doing most of the thefts, why only cars with antitheft devices? Cars without antitheft devices should be stolen in equal, if not more, quantity.

GMATNinja · Answer

We are looking for the answer choice that is the  strongest  in resolving the paradox.

Let’s first identify what the paradox is. We have two supposedly conflicting pieces of evidence:

1) Police statistics that show that antitheft devices  reduce  the risk of car theft, and  
 2) the insurance industry statistics that show that cars equipped with antitheft devices are  more likely  to be stolen than cars without the antitheft devices.

So the paradox to resolve is: if antitheft devices reduce the risk of car theft, why are cars equipped with antitheft devices statistically more likely to be stolen?

Ok, let’s look at the answer choices:

This one  could  explain why the police would receive more reports of stolen cars than the auto insurance industry--owners of stolen cars report theft incidents to the police immediately, and some of those incidents  might  not end up being reported to the insurance companies (for example, if a stolen vehicle is quickly recovered without any damage).

But even if the police do receive more reports of stolen cars, we don’t know whether those stolen cars had antitheft devices. This choice therefore doesn’t give us the statistical information we’d need to resolve the paradox. Let’s get rid of (A).

This choice seems to support the police statistics, but it doesn't explain the insurance industry's statistics suggesting that "cars equipped with antitheft devices are, paradoxically, more likely to be stolen than cars that are not so equipped."

Because (B) only supports one side of the paradox and not both, it doesn't resolve the discrepancy. We can eliminate (B).

In this statement, we are given information about how many times the antitheft devices were  activated , regardless of whether the car was stolen. But to resolve the paradox in the passage, we only care about cars that were stolen.

Because (C) doesn't actually give us any information about the number of  stolen  cars, it does not resolve the paradox. We can eliminate (C).

As we discussed in an  earlier post , (D) provides an explanation for both sides of the paradox:

... The insurance companies' claim could be true, because theft-prone cars in risky areas are more likely to be stolen. If these are the cars with anti-theft devices installed, then it explains why they are stolen more frequently than other cars.

At the same time, the police statistics could be true -- installing anti-theft devices could reduce the  overall  rate of car theft, even if cars with the antitheft devices are stolen more frequently. Note: we do not need to assume that anti-theft devices reduce the risk of car theft, because this information is given to us in the passage. (D) provides additional information that explains how this is possible, given the surprising finding of the study conducted by the insurance industry.

Here is an example to illustrate how (D) resolves the paradox:

Car thefts BEFORE installing antitheft devices: 
Less risky location: 100
More risky location: 1000
Total: 1100

Car thefts AFTER installing antitheft devices: 
Less risky location (no antitheft devices installed): 100
More risky location (lots of antitheft devices installed): 500 
Total: 600

Here, we see that the overall number of car thefts has been reduced by installing antitheft devices. However, we can also see that theft-prone cars with antitheft devices could be more likely to be stolen, because they are located in a risky area.

Let’s keep (D) for now.

If (E) is true, we would expect very little difference between the theft rate of cars WITH antitheft devices and the theft rate of cars WITHOUT antitheft (if anything, the theft rate might be a little bit smaller for cars with antitheft--though the antitheft devices only offer  scant  protection, they still might offer  some  protection).

So, at best, (E)  might  be consistent with the police statistics (if there is, in fact, a slightly lower theft rate for cars with antitheft). But then why do the insurance statistics suggest that cars WITH antitheft are more likely to be stolen than cars WITHOUT antitheft? While (E) may or may not explain the police statistics, it certainly does not explain the insurance statistics or resolve the paradox. We can eliminate (E).

By process of elimination, the answer is (D).

I hope that helps!

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. This would make the insurance industry statistics show a lower theft rate.

(B) No. The conclusion concerns the difference in rates of car theft in two categories (a percentage), not with absolute numbers.

(C) No. This is irrelevant.

(D) Yes.  This resolves the paradox well. If the owners of cars with antitheft devices live in areas with high rates of car theft, then even if the devices help prevent car thefts their cars may still be more likely to be stolen than cars without antitheft devices in areas with little or no car theft. Another possible explanation is that the antitheft devices are more likely to be installed on expensive cars, which are more often the target of thieves.

(E) No. According to the passage, police statistics do show that automobile antitheft devices reduce the risk of car theft.

yotaad · Answer

This question still confuses me. I understand that D explains why the insurance industry claims cars equipped with anti-theft devices report more stolen vehicles, but it doesn't explain why police stats show that it reduces car theft. Shouldn't a resolve the paradox question explain both sides? Answer D only seems to explain one.

Harley1980 · Answer

Hello,  yotaad

In this question we have two facts:
1. police report lowering of stealing
2. insurance companies report more stealing

We don't need to explain both facts because they are already true.
We just need to explain how this is possible that both controversial facts are true.

Answer D connects these two facts. Let's make an example:

we have a bad district which has 1000 cars with the anti-theft device. 500 cars were stolen per year
we have a good district which has 1000 cars without the anti-theft device. 100 cars were stolen per year

The insurance company doesn't take into account the bad/good situation in districts and make the inference that anti-theft device promote a stealing of the car.

testcracker · Answer

Dear Expert

Choice D clearly justifies the claim made by the insurance companies, but how does this choice address the findings produced by the police ....?

please say to me....

thanks in advance

GMATNinja · Answer

We need an answer choice that "resolves the apparent paradox." The apparent paradox that we have to explain is that cars equipped with anti-theft devices are more likely to be stolen than cars that are not so equipped. In other words, one would think that cars equipped with anti-theft devices would be LESS likely to be stolen than cars without anti-theft devices. Why is this not the case?

Choice (D) explains the paradox by suggesting that cars with anti-theft devices would be even MORE prone to theft without the devices. In other words, even though cars with the devices get stolen a lot, those cars would get stolen at a higher rate without the devices. So the devices DO in fact reduce the risk of car theft, as shown by the police statistics. However, despite this reduction, those cars are still more likely to be stolen than cars without such devices.

Choice (D) explains both the insurance industry claims and the police statistics.

I hope that helps!

Xin Cho · Answer

GMATNinja

Could I possibly ask you for the reason why B doesn't work? Even though B supports only the police view in D we need to make the assumption that automobiles with antitheft devices are in general at reduced risk of car theft.

GMATNinja · Answer

To answer a "resolve the paradox" question, you need an answer choice that addresses BOTH sides of the issue. If (B) only supports one side, then it really doesn't resolve the paradox at all. We are still left wondering how the insurance industry's claim could be true-- how can vehicles with anti-theft devices be MORE likely to be stolen than other cars?

We are looking for an answer choice that explains how both the police statistics and the insurance companies' claim could be true at the same time. Because (B) doesn't perform this role, it does not explain the paradox and is not the correct answer choice.

(D), on the other hand,  does  provide an explanation for both sides of the paradox. The insurance companies' claim could be true, because theft-prone cars in risky areas are more likely to be stolen. If these are the cars with anti-theft devices installed, then it explains why they are stolen more frequently than other cars.

At the same time, the police statistics could be true -- installing anti-theft devices could reduce the  overall  rate of car theft, even if cars with the antitheft devices are stolen more frequently. Note: we do not need to assume that anti-theft devices reduce the risk of car theft, because this information is given to us in the passage. (D) provides additional information that explains how this is possible, given the surprising finding of the study conducted by the insurance industry.

Here is an example to illustrate how (D) resolves the paradox:

Car thefts BEFORE installing antitheft devices: 
Less risky location: 100
More risky location: 1000
Total: 1100

Car thefts AFTER installing antitheft devices: 
Less risky location (no antitheft devices installed): 100
More risky location (lots of antitheft devices installed): 500 
Total: 600

Here, we see that the overall number of car thefts has been reduced by installing antitheft devices. However, we can also see that theft-prone cars with antitheft devices could be more likely to be stolen, because they are located in a risky area. (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

tinbq · Answer

Hi experts,
Please help to explain why each choice is right or wrong. Thanks.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Pre-thinking:

The two paradoxical facts are:

i) Anti theft devices prevent thefts as per police records
ii) Cars with antitheft devices are more likely to be stolen as per insurance statistics

Let us examine the answer options:

(A) Owners of stolen cars almost invariably report the theft immediately to the police but tend to delay notifying their insurance company, in the hope that the vehicle will be recovered.  Police statistics show lower thefts of cars with antitheft devices. If owners report promptly to police, we expect police to show more thefts. Despite this, the police records show low theft. Hence, the paradox becomes even more acute. Eliminate.

(B) Most cars that are stolen are not equipped with antitheft devices, and most cars that are equipped with antitheft devices are not stolen.  This does not address the police or insurance statistics in any way, which is essential to resolve the paradox. Eliminate.

(C) The most common automobile antitheft devices are audible alarms, which typically produce ten false alarms for every actual attempted theft.  Same problem as (B). Eliminate.

(D) Automobile owners who have particularly theft-prone cars and live in areas of greatest incidence of car theft are those who are most likely to have antitheft devices installed.  This partly explains the paradox - it is not the antitheft devices which are causing thefts but the possibility of theft which leads to antitheft devices. If greater probability of theft leads to more antitheft devices, we are likely to see the observation seen by insurance companies. However, this does not explain why the police see lower thefts in cars with antitheft devices. Given we have ruled out three options, we can hold on to this for now.

(E) Most automobile thefts are the work of professional thieves against whose efforts antitheft devices offer scant protection.  If this were true, antitheft devices should not show any relationship to thefts. This neither explains police statistics nor those of insurance companies. Eliminate.

While I am not completely satisfied with option (D), at least it explains part of the paradox. None of the other options explain even one part of the paradox. Hence, of the given options, option (D) is the best choice.

Hope this helps.

debjit1990 · Answer

Ans:D
(A) Owners of stolen cars almost invariably report the theft immediately to the police but tend to delay notifying their insurance company, in the hope that the vehicle will be recovered.

(B) Most cars that are stolen are not equipped with antitheft devices, and most cars that are equipped with antitheft devices are not stolen.

(C) The most common automobile antitheft devices are audible alarms, which typically produce ten false alarms for every actual attempted theft.

(D) Automobile owners who have particularly theft-prone cars and live in areas of greatest incidence of car theft are those who are most likely to have antitheft devices installed.

(E) Most automobile thefts are the work of professional thieves against whose efforts antitheft devices offer scant protection.

unraveled · Answer

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.

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

(A) Owners of stolen cars almost invariably report the theft immediately to the police but tend to delay notifying their insurance company, in the hope that the vehicle will be recovered. - WRONG. Case might be similar for both types of cars.

(B) Most cars that are stolen are not equipped with antitheft devices, and most cars that are equipped with antitheft devices are not stolen. - WRONG. Paradox amplified.

(C) The most common automobile antitheft devices are audible alarms, which typically produce ten false alarms for every actual attempted theft. - WRONG. Likely a good candidate had some assumption(required in present form) been elaborated.

(D)  Automobile owners  who  have particularly theft-prone cars  and  live in areas of greatest incidence of car theft   are those who are most likely to have antitheft devices installed . - CORRECT. This is nicely clean and clear. Points out another factor responsible for such a paradox.

(E) Most automobile thefts are the work of professional thieves against whose efforts antitheft devices offer scant protection. - WRONG. Okay, gives hope but protection is scant for both installed and uninstalled ones.

Answer D.

KarishmaB · Answer

Here is a video solution to the problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf_P-pvO9gc

Police statistics have shown that automobile antitheft devices reduce

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Police statistics have shown that automobile antitheft devices reduce

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards