LSAT CR–Police statistics have shown that

[supratim7]

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.

OA: (D)

As I understand, the paradox is "Police statistics say antitheft devices = reduced risk of car theft BUT Auto industry statistics say antitheft devices = increased risk of car theft"

OA (D) successfully resolves why "Auto industry statistics say antitheft devices = increased risk of car theft" BUT doesn't deal with "Police statistics say antitheft devices = reduced risk of car theft". So, how does this OA (D) work?

Thank you | Supratim

[RonPurewal]

When you have to explain weird things, you only have to explain the weird part. The things that are perfectly normal are, well, perfectly normal, and so don't need to be explained.

E.g.,
My friend has started to eat more food than ever before. However, she is not gaining weight.
--> If I wanted to explain this, all I need is a reason for the lack of weight gain. (More exercise, better thyroid medicine, wasting disease, whatever.) Reasons why she's eating the extra food would be irrelevant.

[supratim7]

When you have to explain weird things, you only have to explain the weird part. The things that are perfectly normal are, well, perfectly normal, and so don't need to be explained.

Ha.. of course.. my bad. While chasing "Critical Reasoning", had left my "General Reasoning" behind :)

Also, I would request you to briefly share your views on practicing LSAT CR questions for GMAT CR.

Thank you so much Ron.

[RonPurewal]

When you have to explain weird things, you only have to explain the weird part. The things that are perfectly normal are, well, perfectly normal, and so don't need to be explained.

Ha.. of course.. my bad. While chasing "Critical Reasoning", had left my "General Reasoning" behind :)

Always double-check to see if you've dropped that. It can be slippery.

Also, I would request you to briefly share your views on practicing LSAT CR questions for GMAT CR.

1/
Not a great idea.
There are a small number of LSAT logical reasoning problems that are reasonably similar to GMAT problems (such as this one here).

On the other hand, most LSAT logical reasoning problems are completely unlike GMAT problems. They typically depend on formal logic -- you know, the "If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C" type of stuff that you could theoretically do with Boolean circuits.
With these problems, in the absolute best-case scenario, you'd be completely wasting your time. More likely, you'd actually get worse at solving GMAT CR problems, because you'd be building a skill set that's essentially irrelevant to the GMAT (and that, if taken to an extreme, will erode the kind of common-sense thinking required by the vast majority of GMAT CR's).

More importantly,
2/
There's absolutely no reason why you would ever need non-official CR materials.
Between the OG and the OG verbal supplement, there are over 200 CR problems. With GMAT PREP taken into account, there are almost twice that many.
Honestly, if you've done a hundred CR problems, you are pretty much done studying for CR. Remember that there's absolutely nothing to learn for CR -- it's just everyday reasoning, of the sort that you can already do. The only point of practicing the problems is to defeat the "academic" mentality, actually read the words and understand what they say, and get yourself to think about the situations in a real-world way.
In other words, once you solidify a certain way of thinking about CR -- regardless of whether it's a good one or a bad one -- additional practice really isn't going to do a whole lot either way.

(This is in fact the reason why CR is on the exam: it's a test of pure reasoning of which everyone is already capable, and there's really not much "studying" you can do for it.)

[supratim7]

Thank you so much for these insights Ron. Very valuable.

Well, the thing is, I am not very good at "unpacking" complex/twisted/extra long verbiage. I even suspected dyslexia but you've ruled that out. So, perhaps my "unpacking" skills for complex verbiage is below average.

I face no problem in the "reasoning" part, provided I manage to parse/unpack the "basic deal" in a CR. It is not the "basic argument/deal" but the "intimidating-looking complex verbiage" that throws me off track. This issue also impacts some Quant, SC, and RC questions, but it is a major hindrance in CR.

Though I have exhausted most official CR sources, barring the GMAPPrep Question Pack-1, I don't feel confident in CR. Especially so because when I analyze the incorrect ones, I notice "easy reasoning" but "sloppy/freaky unpacking" on my part.

I think, extra practice with LAST CR is helping me overcome this "verbiage phobia" to an extent. So, my plan was to rough it out more with LAST-CR, just to get a better grip on this "verbiage phobia", and then move on to remaining GMAPPrep Question Pack-1 CR questions to re-orient myself. But you have a issued a warning against LSAT CR.

Please let me know your views on this. Any help/advice would be a favor.

PS: I have read/read tons of regular english materials (NY Times, Forbes, etc) but that don't help much because such materials are quite interesting, well-written, and succinct (sentences rarely contain multiple slippery modifiers/qualifiers or extend to four-five lines in length).

[RonPurewal]

Well, the thing is, I am not very good at "unpacking" complex/twisted/extra long verbiage. I even suspected dyslexia but you've ruled that out. So, perhaps my "unpacking" skills for complex verbiage is below average.

Of all the things I've suggested to people regarding this issue, the most valuable has been "Imagine there's an 11-year-old standing in front of you" (to whom you have to explain the content of the passage).
There's just something about explaining things to kids that makes people better at simplifying. Give it a shot.

[RonPurewal]

I think, extra practice with LAST CR is helping me overcome this "verbiage phobia" to an extent. So, my plan was to rough it out more with LAST-CR, just to get a better grip on this "verbiage phobia", and then move on to remaining GMAPPrep Question Pack-1 CR questions to re-orient myself. But you have a issued a warning against LSAT CR.

Please let me know your views on this. Any help/advice would be a favor.

If you pick out the strengthening/weakening probelms from the lsat sets, those should be decent. As for the problems that deal with formal logic -- especially the "If the following statements are true, which of these choices also must be true?" variety -- doing too many of those is likely to un-train the instincts that you'll need for the gmat.

[RonPurewal]

PS: I have read/read tons of regular english materials (NY Times, Forbes, etc) but that don't help much because such materials are quite interesting, well-written, and succinct (sentences rarely contain multiple slippery modifiers/qualifiers or extend to four-five lines in length).

The language of the CR problems is, in the main, comparable to that of the NYT. I don't know much about Forbes.
If the CR problems seem "denser", it's likely the lack of context that's causing the problem. I.e., the CR problems have to introduce all the relevant information within the space of a few lines, whereas the NYT has much, much more space in which to introduce those ideas.

If you are ok with those kinds of sources, then it's probably the simplifying issue (addressed by "imagine that there's an 11-year-old in front of you") that is primary.

[supratim7]

Thank you for the reply Ron.

Of all the things I've suggested to people regarding this issue, the most valuable has been "Imagine there's an 11-year-old standing in front of you" (to whom you have to explain the content of the passage).
There's just something about explaining things to kids that makes people better at simplifying. Give it a shot.

Very interesting.. I think it would help. Will 100% practice it.

If you pick out the strengthening/weakening probelms from the lsat sets, those should be decent. As for the problems that deal with formal logic -- especially the "If the following statements are true, which of these choices also must be true?" variety -- doing too many of those is likely to un-train the instincts that you'll need for the gmat.

Sure, will do. Yes, I did notice many "must be true" type; will avoid them.

If the CR problems seem "denser", it's likely the lack of context that's causing the problem. I.e., the CR problems have to introduce all the relevant information within the space of a few lines, whereas the NYT has much, much more space in which to introduce those ideas.

Yes, that definitely aggravates the problem.

Thank you so much for the help Ron.
As usual, several solid advice; at the least, I owe you a week's beer supply :)

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

As for your offer, I don't drink. (:
Although if you know a store in California that sells "Big Red Zero" soft drink, I'll be eternally grateful.

[supratim7]

Ha.. then something else perhaps, whenever I am there next time :)

Sadly, I am not familiar with "Big Red Zero", but I presume you've tried http://bigred.com/Find#.UtwRHWS6a2x. Its throwing up several stores in San Jose.

[RonPurewal]

Hmm, thanks. Most of those are liquor stores... if you consider my previous statement about drinking, well, "the two statements together are sufficient". Ha. Thanks, will try.

If anyone else has questions about the actual math problem in this thread, please fire away. Thanks.

[supratim7]

Give em a try, and good luck :)

[RonPurewal]

thanks.