Explanation

@Courtnee-Green the conclusion here 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? Because, "burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries" but "of every 100 burglar alarms police answer, 99 are false alarms" and "this situation causes an enormous and dangerous drain on increasingly scarce public resources" (each false alarm wastes an average of 45 minutes of police time). Okay, this is an Argument Structure question, which is pointing us to the statement that "burglar alarm systems, unlike car alarm systems, are effective in deterring burglaries". (B) would not explain the role of this statement correctly. In fact, it is the other premises, i.e. "of every 100 burglar alarms police answer, 99 are false alarms" and "this situation causes an enormous and dangerous drain on increasingly scarce public resources" (each false alarm wastes an average of 45 minutes of police time), that provides this background information. (C), on the other hand, is the correct answer because by pointing out that burglar alarm systems are effective in deterring burglaries, the author is ruling out the alternative to his proposal, i.e. banning burglar alarm systems completely. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.