Of every 100 burglar alarms police answer, 99 are false alarms. This situation causes an enormous and dangerous drain...

Ravi August 29, 2019

Hey there,

You're right—we're not supposed to assume any additional information
when taking the LSAT and simply focus on what each question provides
us. This is a tricky question, so let's take a look at it.

The conclusion of the argument is that the only acceptable solution is
to fine burglar alarm system owners the cost of 45 minutes of police
time for each false alarm their systems generate. This is supported by
the premise that burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are
effective in deterring burglaries.

The question stem asks us to identify the role what the statement that
burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, plays in the
argument. Based on our analysis, we know that this statement is a
premise that is supporting the overall conclusion of the argument.
Therefore, when we read the answer choices, we're looking for an
answer that matches our prediction: this statement is a premise
supporting the conclusion.

Answer A is incorrect because there is nowhere in the stimulus where
restrictions on owners of burglar alarms vs. owners of car alarms is
discussed. It's says it "justifies," which is what a premise does, but
the rest of answer A is nonsense. We can get rid of this.

Answer B is incorrect because it is not providing background
information needed for the statement that the number of burglar alarms
police are called on to answer is great enough to be a drain on public
resources. This statement is provided as background information (a
fact) in the beginning of the argument. We can eliminate this answer.

Answer C is correct because it provides a great paraphrase of what
we're looking for. It says that it provides a basis for excluding as
unacceptable one obvious alternative to the proposal of finding owners
of burglar alarm systems for false alarms. "Providing a basis" means
it's providing support, so we know answer C is describing the
statement as a premise. The proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm
systems for false claims is the conclusion that we identified, so this
answer is saying that it's supporting that conclusion. Even if the
part of answer C that says "excluding as unacceptable one obvious
alternative" is something we don't catch immediately, the rest of the
answer is strong. On our first pass through the answer choices, we may
not circle this answer immediately, but after looking at D and E and
how bad they are, we'll be able to select this answer choice
confidently.

Answer D is incorrect because the argument deals with imposing fines
as the only acceptable solution to the problem of false alarms. The
argument is not about police having a greater inclination to respond
to burglar alarms than to car alarms. The argument is not about car
alarms at all, and we could remove the bit about car alarms from the
argument without affecting it. We can get rid of this answer.

Answer E is incorrect because the purported statement that E is saying
is being explained is something that is not mentioned in the argument.
We can eliminate this answer.

The only decent answer we have left is C. As noted above, we know that
it's a premise supporting the conclusion, and C is the only answer
that remotely resembles that.

Now, let's look at how C is ruling out one obvious alternative to the
proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms.
The purpose of the statement that burglar alarms, unlike car alarm
systems, are effective in deterring burglaries is used as a way of
excluding the possibility of just getting rid of alarms. It shows that
they have some utility, and it supports the contention that the only
acceptable solution si to fine burglar alarm system owners the cost of
45 minutes of police time for each false alarm their systems generate.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!