Q25 - Police statistics have shown

[b91302310]

For this question, the correct answer is (D) which makes sense. However, I was wondering why answer choice (A) is flawed. Is it because the "delaying" of notifying the insurance company is irrelevant to both sides' claims since "delaying" is the issue of timing difference but not the issue of quantity pointed in the sitmulus?

Thanks for the clarification.

[giladedelman]

Yeah! Right on. Whether car owners take longer to notify their insurance companies than the police has no bearing on whether the car is more likely to be stolen in the first place. So (A) is out of scope.

(D) is correct because it resolves the paradox. Antitheft devices may reduce the risk of car theft compared to not having the device, but if people whose cars are most at risk of theft are the ones most likely to get the device, then maybe their cars are still more likely to be stolen than cars without the device.

(B) actually doesn't tell us anything, because we'd need to know something about the relative frequency of cars with and without antitheft devices.

(C) is out of scope. We don't care about the type or the functionality of the antitheft devices.

(E) would explain why antitheft devices don't work, but not why cars with them would be more likely to be stolen.

So, again, your explanation was right on. Let me know if you have any more questions about this one.

[comeau.celina]

I am still confused here...

To my understanding the discrepancy here is police notice left is down with anti theft devices vs. insurance companies notice that theft is more likely to increase if you have an anti theft device. So, in my mind I would think there would be an answer that explains how both, the police and insurance company have merit.

I don't really see how any of the answers work, and I am especially confused by C. Does C not go against the police findings? If more cars are stolen with Ant Theft wouldn't that mean the Police findings would be wrong?

Do I make sense here?

Please help!