Q14 - The number of automobile thefts

[jenndg100380]

Can someone please explain why A is correct? All the answer choices sounded terrible to me. I just chose it, because it was the best of the worst.

Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question!

I'm glad to hear you stuck to the "best of the worst" philosophy. Sometimes we really won't like any of the answers, but still can give ourselves a chance if we figure out which four are definitely out.

In this case, we're trying to explain why car thefts have declined and why car thieves are more likely to be convicted.

(A) is correct because it covers both bases. The fact that there are fewer thieves helps explain the decline in thefts, and the fact that a lower proportion of thieves tend to abandon cars before the owners notice the theft helps explain why thieves are more likely to be convicted: if a greater proportion of them stay in the car after the owner notices it's gone, then we can reasonably infer that a greater proportion are likely to be caught.

(B) doesn't help at all. If anything, it would suggest that thieves are less likely to be caught.

(C), if anything, would suggest that convictions have gone down, since cops have to worry about home burglaries.

(D) is just way out of scope.

(E) is out of scope, too, because the issue is likelihood of conviction, not leniency of sentence.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[denis468]

I get the explanation for the first portion of the argument and that the decline of auto thefts is explained by the general decrease of thief population. However, I cannot comprehend how "the decrease in proportion of thiefs who tend to abandon cars before their owners notice vehicle theft" affects the increase in the likelihood of conviction for an auto theft.
It's is either they stole a vehicle or they did not. If they stole it and got caught ->convicted of theft. If abandoned and got caught->conviction. BUT if they either stole and got away or abandoned and did not get got -> no conviction.
Please explain.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I cannot comprehend how "the decrease in proportion of thiefs who tend to abandon cars before their owners notice vehicle theft" affects the increase in the likelihood of conviction for an auto theft.

Ah! Good question! If the proportion of car thieves who abandon cars has decreased, then it makes it more likely that the car thief would be caught with the car!! If the car thief abandons the car, it makes it tougher to find the culprit. However, if the car thief holds on to the car, it makes it easier to convict the thief when they find the car eventually.

Hope that helps, and let me know if it's still a bit unclear!

[daniel]

I got this right, but when I was reading through the answer choices, I misread (A) the first time through and had to read it again after eliminating all 5 answer choices, at which time I realized that I misread it (as "proportion has not also decreased"), and thought it was the opposite of what was needed.

I'm just curious to know whether anybody else thinks that the way answer choice (A) is worded is designed to encourage a misreading?

My argument for this is that typically, when you see the structure like "Although X, Y", the X and Y are opposing each other in some way. For example, "Although the number of pepperoni slices on the pizza at Nick's decreased when the new management took over, the surface area covered by pepperoni on the pizza has actually increased."

Recasting this example to match (A), we'd have "Although the number of pepperoni slices on the pizza at Nick's decreased when the new management took over, the surface area covered by pepperoni on the pizza has also decreased."

Is it just me?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

You bring up a good point. A very common use of the words "although," "even though," "yet," "while," and "but" is to set up opposing points.

However, on the LSAT it's also very common to see them used as conjunctions that simply imply "and." Meaning that while the common use of the opposing point is something to look out for, I don't believe the LSAT writers used the word "although" in a manner that runs counter to one of their standard uses or was especially intended to be "tricky" or "misleading."

Great attention to detail though! It'll serve you well in adapting to the LSAT writers' highly specialized use of language.

[zss998]

What I don't understand here is "before their owners notice they have been stolen". What does that matter? That's what threw me off. Whether it's before or after the owner realizes it's been stolen makes no difference right?

[snoopy]

What I don't understand here is "before their owners notice they have been stolen". What does that matter? That's what threw me off. Whether it's before or after the owner realizes it's been stolen makes no difference right?

Five years ago: Owners wouldn't have known who broke into their car, so the number of thefts reported would've been higher.
Now: Owners now catch the thief; convictions are higher. Despite the small number of car thieves, the number of thefts reported decrease.

That's how I see it.