Bunuel wrote:
The state legislature has proposed a new law that would provide a tax credit to people who install alarm systems in their homes. Members of the legislature claim that the new law will reduce crime, citing studies showing that crime rates fall as the percentage of homes with alarm systems rises.
Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the claim that the new law will reduce crime?
A. No law can prevent crime altogether.
B. The amount of the tax credit is so low relative to the cost of alarm systems that very few people will install alarm systems in order to obtain this credit.
C. Neighborhood crime prevention programs can reduce crime as effectively as alarm systems can.
D. The state would have to build more prisons to house all the people caught by the new alarm systems.
E. The state Cannot afford to reduce taxes any further.
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
B
The stimulus cites evidence that an increase in the number of alarm systems does reduce crime. In order for the new law to reduce crime, it must result in an increase in the number of alarm systems installed. The members of the legislature must therefore be assuming that the tax credit will induce people who otherwise would not have installed alarm systems to do so. To cast doubt on this claim, we will need a choice which contradicts this assumption. And that is what (B) does. If the tax credit is too small relative to the cost of the alarm systems, then very few people will be induced to install the systems, and thus the new law will not reduce crime.
(A) uses extreme language and is also out of scope; the issue is whether this particular law can reduce crime, not whether crime can ever be eradicated. (C) presents an irrelevant comparison. Even if it is true, it does not provide any reason for why the new tax law would not reduce crime. (D) is a 180; if the new law reduces crime, the state should need fewer prisons, not more. (E) is both extreme and out of scope.