Argument Structure

Hi @alana, thanks for your post. Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the relative effectiveness in deterring thieves (burglar alarms better at this than car alarms) tells us nothing about "why police may be more inclined to respond" to burglar vs. car alarms. Think about it this way. If burglar alarm systems are, in and of themselves, effective at *deterring* burglaries, in many instances the police may not be involved at all. A burglar who sees a burglar alarm system sign in front of a home or business may be effectively deterred from attempting a burglary at all - and if that's true, the police may never be called, right? Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

I do not understand the language in answer C. This question as a whole does not make sense to me. Please explain?

@jazlyne (C) is saying that the sentence plays the role of knocking out an obvious alternative answer. One obvious alternative would just be to ban alarm systems since they cause so many false alarms. However, the fact that alarms DETER BURGLARIES means we should not get rid of them, in other words, the alarms lower the amount of burglaries whether or not they go off. This makes sense intuitively: the mere presence of an alarm system stops some burglars from attempting the burglary in the first place. So the statement provides a basis for NOT choosing the simpler alternative of just not allowing alarms altogether and instead fining for false alarms. I hope that helps!