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

Naz May 30, 2014

So we are faced with an Argument Structure question. We want to identify what the role of the specific statement is. Let's first break down the argument.

Our conclusion is: "so 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." Why? Well of every 100 burglar alarms that the police answer, 99 are false alarms. This results in a drain on increasingly scarce public resources. We are told that each false alarm wastes an average of 45 minutes of police time. A disproportionate amount of police service goes to alarm system users who are usually businesses and affluent homeowners. We are then told that burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries. So, even if the alternative of getting rid of these alarms all together might be a viable option for car alarms, it is not a viable option for burglar alarms because they are actually effective in deterring burglaries.

We are looking for the answer choice that correctly represents the role of the statement, "burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries."

Answer choice (A) states that the statement's role is to justify placing more restrictions on owners of burglar alarms than car alarms. However, the passage does not discuss placing restrictions on owners of burglar alarms, merely fining people whose burglar alarms go off falsely.

Answer choice (B) states that the statement's role is to provide background information needed in order to make the claim that the number of burglar alarms police are called on to answer is great enough to be a drain on public resources. Though the passage does state that the large amount of false burglar alarm responses is causing "an enormous and dangerous drain on increasingly scarce public resources," the statement that burglar alarm systems, unlike car systems, are effective in deterring burglaries does not provide background information on this.

Answer choice (C) states that the statement's role is to preclude one obvious alternative to the proposal of fining owners of burglar alarm systems for false alarms. This is exactly what the statement does in the passage. We are told that unlike car alarm systems that are not effective in deterring burglaries, burglar alarm systems are effective in deterring them, and therefore, the only acceptable solution is to fine burglar alarm systems for false alarms. The obvious alternative to stopping wasted resources caused by false burglar alarms is to get rid of the alarms. The statement, however, points out, that unlike car alarms, which are not effective, burglar alarms are effective; so we should not get rid of them, merely we should fine those who have false alarms.

Answer choice (D) states that the statement's role is to give a reason as to why police are more likely to respond to burglar alarms than car alarms. However, this is not what the statement does at all. No reason for why police respond to either alarm, nor how often they respond to each is given.

Answer choice (E) states that the statement's role is to explain why more burglar alarms that are responded to by police come from alarm systems owned by businesses than any other type of owner. We have obviously not been given any information on how often different alarm system users get police responses.

Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions.

rwhelen June 25, 2015

I answered A because I interpreted restriction to be a fine. Why is this not the case? Also, C states an "obvious alternative" however this alternative to the fine is not mentioned and there is nothing even alluding to any other option... Is this a premise? What does it support?