Q9 - in each of the last ten years, there have been few comp

[liu.cm.1]

I was between answer choices C and E.

Is answer choice C incorrect because it doesn't provide an adequate reason why complaints are rare. Even if fraud isn't detected two years after the the incident doesn't deter the victims from reporting it when they do realized that they have been scammed.

Someone please help! Thanks!

[sumukh09]

C is tempting but I think it's wrong because as you said it doesn't really tell us why there have been only a few complaints to law enforcement agencies. Just because a couple years have passed doesn't make it any less likely that the people will just ignore that they got scammed. Also the word "some" is a bit problematic since we'd expect there to be more than "some" fraudulent telemarketers given that it has become a "more and more" serious problem as the stimulates states.

E is correct because it gives us a reason why there have been only a few complaints and also doesn't question the legitimacy of the increasing seriousness of the problem.

[WaltGrace1983]

In this question, we are supposed to resolve the apparent discrepancy between two seemingly conflicting pieces of information:

(1) In the last ten years, there have been few complaints to law enforcement agencies of telemarketing fraud
(2) In the last ten years, telemarketing schemes have becoming more and more serious

So how can we show that these two things aren't necessarily conflicting?

* Well we could say that people who are the victims of fraud never even realized that they were victims at all. Imagine a situation in which someone donates to an organization over the phone (the organization being someone's pocket, of course) - can you ever really be fully aware of who you are donating too?
* Maybe people are not complaining in general? Or better yet, maybe they simply aren't complaining to law enforcement but instead a separate bureau that deals with this sort of thing.
* Maybe the crimes are being reduced in number but are still becoming more serious. The stimulus is just saying that telemarketing fraud is simply "more and more serious a problem" but doesn't explain what exactly "serious" means.

Now that I have a solid idea of how to resolve this discrepancy, I can proceed to the answer choices.

(A) This doesn't resolve anything. We don't care about what happens when telemarketers are convicted! We are trying to understand why complaints are low but the problems are increasing!

(B) This is actually very similar to (A). We aren't concerned about the justice inflicted upon telemarketers. We want to explain why complaints are low but the problems are increasing!

(C) This is close! This gets at one of the things I pre-phrased. If they cannot detect it then they obviously won't complain. However, (C) is actually saying that they do detect it, but they detect it too late! This could still mean that they will complain. This would be a much better answer (and potentially correct) if it said "Some fraudulent telemarketers have concocted...that makes it unlikely that victims will ever detach the fraud."

(D) This is similar to (A) as well. We don't care about the prosecution of telemarketers! We want to connect "complaints" with the seriousness of the problems.

(E) This looks good! and it better because its the last one left! If the majority (note how strong this word is) of victims do not seek any legal remedy (aka, don't complain), then maybe this could explain why there aren't very many complaints! Now it doesn't address the problems aspect but it doesn't really need to because, as another poster said, we can just accept that "fraudulent telemarketing schemes have become more and more serious"

[tiggy]

I was thrown off by E because of the term "legal remedy". Its one thing to have "few complaints" and another to seek "legal remedy". So when I read this answer choice I felt like it wasn't strong enough, since people could still complain without seeking legal remedy.

In short, i steered away from this answer choice because I felt it was equating "Few complaints" with "legal remedy", which may not necessarily be the same. I would really appreciate it if someone could address this point. Thanks

[oyxy1111]

I was thrown off by E because of the term "legal remedy". Its one thing to have "few complaints" and another to seek "legal remedy". So when I read this answer choice I felt like it wasn't strong enough, since people could still complain without seeking legal remedy.

In short, i steered away from this answer choice because I felt it was equating "Few complaints" with "legal remedy", which may not necessarily be the same. I would really appreciate it if someone could address this point. Thanks

I think there's too much discretion here. It is fair to say that "to seek legal remedy" is approximately equal to "to complain to law enforcement".

[jm.kahn]

I was confused by E because it really doesn't address a crucial aspect of the argument. The stim says that the complaints have been few but the schemes are becoming "more and more" serious problem. This paradox has a comparative aspect that over the years the problem became increasingly serious yet the complaints remained few. E does't address this crucial comparative aspect. I get that answer doesn't have to be perfect but LR often tests us on comparative and lsat writers often use this same reasoning to eliminate answer choices that don't address the comparative aspect.

Can an LR guru who appreciates this distinction explain this issue?