Preptest 61, section 4, question 14... plz explain Forum

[hazara]

Hey guys I cannot figure out why A is the correct answer. Can someone plz explain. thanks.

[ScottRiqui]

Hey guys I cannot figure out why A is the correct answer. Can someone plz explain. thanks.

If there are fewer car thieves now than there were before, that would explain why there are fewer thefts. But if the modern thieves are holding on to the stolen cars long enough for the owners to notice (and to report the theft, giving the police a chance to start investigating while the thief still has the car), then that would explain why a thief is more likely to be caught/convicted today, compared to in the past.

[hazara]

Hey guys I cannot figure out why A is the correct answer. Can someone plz explain. thanks.

If there are fewer car thieves now than there were before, that would explain why there are fewer thefts. But if the modern thieves are holding on to the stolen cars long enough for the owners to notice (and to report the theft, giving the police a chance to start investigating while the thief still has the car), then that would explain why a thief is more likely to be caught/convicted today, compared to in the past.

Got it. thanks once again.

[ScottRiqui]

You're welcome!

[Christine (MLSAT)]

For an 'Explain' question, you are going to get two separate facts. Sometimes they'll be really weird together (and the question might read 'resolve the apparent paradox'). In this situation, the two facts don't necessarily seem all that odd together, though. The goal is to find the answer choice that helps explain both of them.

Fact 1: fewer car thefts now than 5 yrs ago
Fact 2: car thief is more likely to be convicted now than 5 yrs ago

(A) explains both pieces: if there are fewer car thieves now than 5 years ago, that could easily explain why there are fewer car thefts now. The second explanation is slightly more difficult to parse: if those thieves are less likely to abandon the car super fast, we may be more likely to catch them.

To illustrate: 5 years ago, maybe all the thieves went for a 20 minute joy ride then abandoned the car, all before the owner even realized it was gone (so no one was looking for them!). Once they've abandoned the car, it's a lot harder to catch them red-handed. But now, the thieves are staying with the cars longer, which means we're more likely to be able to catch them red-handed, which would help make conviction more likely.

(B) only explains the drop in car thefts, not the increase in percentage of convictions.
(C) doesn't help explain either fact - might even make them a bit stranger.
(D) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, and might make the increased convictions ever harder to explain.
(E) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, but the sentencing issue is also irrelevant for the convictions fact - the fact was about the percentage convicted, not the severity of sentences.

[hazara]

For an 'Explain' question, you are going to get two separate facts. Sometimes they'll be really weird together (and the question might read 'resolve the apparent paradox'). In this situation, the two facts don't necessarily seem all that odd together, though. The goal is to find the answer choice that helps explain both of them.

Fact 1: fewer car thefts now than 5 yrs ago
Fact 2: car thief is more likely to be convicted now than 5 yrs ago

(A) explains both pieces: if there are fewer car thieves now than 5 years ago, that could easily explain why there are fewer car thefts now. The second explanation is slightly more difficult to parse: if those thieves are less likely to abandon the car super fast, we may be more likely to catch them.

To illustrate: 5 years ago, maybe all the thieves went for a 20 minute joy ride then abandoned the car, all before the owner even realized it was gone (so no one was looking for them!). Once they've abandoned the car, it's a lot harder to catch them red-handed. But now, the thieves are staying with the cars longer, which means we're more likely to be able to catch them red-handed, which would help make conviction more likely.

(B) only explains the drop in car thefts, not the increase in percentage of convictions.
(C) doesn't help explain either fact - might even make them a bit stranger.
(D) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, and might make the increased convictions ever harder to explain.
(E) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, but the sentencing issue is also irrelevant for the convictions fact - the fact was about the percentage convicted, not the severity of sentences.

exactly, I understand why A is the correct answer choice. I kept mistaking the word 'decreased' in choice A as 'increased' and kept thinking that abandoned cars increased so I couldnt figure out why the conviction rates were going up.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

For an 'Explain' question, you are going to get two separate facts. Sometimes they'll be really weird together (and the question might read 'resolve the apparent paradox'). In this situation, the two facts don't necessarily seem all that odd together, though. The goal is to find the answer choice that helps explain both of them.

Fact 1: fewer car thefts now than 5 yrs ago
Fact 2: car thief is more likely to be convicted now than 5 yrs ago

(A) explains both pieces: if there are fewer car thieves now than 5 years ago, that could easily explain why there are fewer car thefts now. The second explanation is slightly more difficult to parse: if those thieves are less likely to abandon the car super fast, we may be more likely to catch them.

To illustrate: 5 years ago, maybe all the thieves went for a 20 minute joy ride then abandoned the car, all before the owner even realized it was gone (so no one was looking for them!). Once they've abandoned the car, it's a lot harder to catch them red-handed. But now, the thieves are staying with the cars longer, which means we're more likely to be able to catch them red-handed, which would help make conviction more likely.

(B) only explains the drop in car thefts, not the increase in percentage of convictions.
(C) doesn't help explain either fact - might even make them a bit stranger.
(D) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, and might make the increased convictions ever harder to explain.
(E) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, but the sentencing issue is also irrelevant for the convictions fact - the fact was about the percentage convicted, not the severity of sentences.

exactly, I understand why A is the correct answer choice. I kept mistaking the word 'decreased' in choice A as 'increased' and kept thinking that abandoned cars increased so I couldnt figure out why the conviction rates were going up.

D'oh! That would do it. :p

I make that kind of mistake all the time. I actually often draw tiny arrows up or down next to things to help me keep track, because it's such a bad tendency. Seems silly, but it works for me.

[hazara]

For an 'Explain' question, you are going to get two separate facts. Sometimes they'll be really weird together (and the question might read 'resolve the apparent paradox'). In this situation, the two facts don't necessarily seem all that odd together, though. The goal is to find the answer choice that helps explain both of them.

Fact 1: fewer car thefts now than 5 yrs ago
Fact 2: car thief is more likely to be convicted now than 5 yrs ago

(A) explains both pieces: if there are fewer car thieves now than 5 years ago, that could easily explain why there are fewer car thefts now. The second explanation is slightly more difficult to parse: if those thieves are less likely to abandon the car super fast, we may be more likely to catch them.

To illustrate: 5 years ago, maybe all the thieves went for a 20 minute joy ride then abandoned the car, all before the owner even realized it was gone (so no one was looking for them!). Once they've abandoned the car, it's a lot harder to catch them red-handed. But now, the thieves are staying with the cars longer, which means we're more likely to be able to catch them red-handed, which would help make conviction more likely.

(B) only explains the drop in car thefts, not the increase in percentage of convictions.
(C) doesn't help explain either fact - might even make them a bit stranger.
(D) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, and might make the increased convictions ever harder to explain.
(E) certainly doesn't explain the drop in car thefts, but the sentencing issue is also irrelevant for the convictions fact - the fact was about the percentage convicted, not the severity of sentences.

exactly, I understand why A is the correct answer choice. I kept mistaking the word 'decreased' in choice A as 'increased' and kept thinking that abandoned cars increased so I couldnt figure out why the conviction rates were going up.

D'oh! That would do it. :p

I make that kind of mistake all the time. I actually often draw tiny arrows up or down next to things to help me keep track, because it's such a bad tendency. Seems silly, but it works for me.

its actually a first for me, but if it happens again I will start marking em up