Homeowners in the United States are typically protected

Question

Homeowners in the United States are typically protected against loss due to break-ins by security alarm companies. A police expert argues that alarm companies are partially responsible for the recent rise in burglaries because homeowners are often lulled into a sense of security and become less careful about home security after having an alarm installed. If alarm companies did not insure against loss due to break-in, these homeowners would be forced to be more careful.

The police expert`s conclusion is weakened by which of the following, if true?

 
(A) Before alarm companies began insuring against loss due to break-ins, there was a lower rate of burglary than there is now.
(B) Few homeowners would invest in burglar alarms if alarm companies did not guarantee their products by offering insurance against loss due to break-in.
(C) Surveys show that most homeowners are also protected against loss due to break-in through their homeowner`s insurance policy.
(D) Most professional burglars are able to circumvent the three most common alarm systems without setting off an alarm.
(E) Window stickers stating that the house is protected by an alarm are proven to deter burglars whether or not the house is actually protected by an alarm.

an_narang · Answer

between C and E...I would go for C

mohish · Answer

Not convinced...but on exam day, I would mark E.

krisrini · Answer

I would go with C

mahesh004 · Answer

I will go for C because it directly attacks the reason for conclusion - 

if homeowners are not insured they will be more careful.

cdaat · Answer

Another one for C

Bhai · Answer

C Yes.

desiguy · Answer

Go with C.

Deals with the reason why per the police.

ranga41 · Answer

Is sould be E

C is clealy wrong because, having home insurance does not mean the homeowner is more careful inspite of having alarm....

nakib77 · Answer

I will go with B.

gsr · Answer

C is my choice.

Having insurance is what makes the homeowners lax. If the homeowners still have coverage after the alarm company withdraws it's coverage, the will still be lax.

GMATT73 · Answer

OA is C

Explanation: 

The argument makes the statement that there is a causal link between security alarms and homeowner comfort, identifying this argument as Causal and indicating the causal assumption that this is the one and only possible cause for homeowner comfort. 

To weaken that assumption point to another cause for the the homeowner comfort. 

(A) Strengthens ・this points to the alarms being the cause of more break-ins which supports the argument. 

(B) Irrelevant ・this does not address the assumptions nor does it attack the connection between alarms and homeowner comfort level.

(C) Keep ・this points out that homeowner insurance could be the cause for the homeowner sense of security rather than insurance from alarm companies.

(D) Irrelevant ・this does not address any of the assumptions in the argument.

(E) Irrelevant ・though at first glance this may appear to weaken it is not better than C. the assumptions in the argument relate to the effect of alarms on homeowner sense of security this does not directly address any of those assumptions and this choice requires additional information, which is not provided, to weaken effectively.

Homeowners in the United States are typically protected

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