tisrar02 wrote:Security Expert: Everyday thousands of people find themselves victims of burglary. The average loss, based on the value of commonly stolen property, is roughly $10,000. Alarm systems with 24-hour monitoring dramatically reduce the chances of a break-in. Though this is a desirable result, a lifetime subscription to such a service costs about $13,000, and so it cannot be recommended for a typical homeowner. <-- This is the conclusion. It states that because the system costs about 13,000 but customers (who actually get broken into) usually only incur a loss of 10,000. That means that using the system will cost 3,000 more then it would actually save from loss. So clearly, it doesn't make economic sense to install one. OK our job is to weaken the conclusion. A good way to do this is to find an answer which clearly shows there is an economic advantage (over 3,000) to install the system.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the argument?


(A) One study has shown that simply putting up alarm warning signs to scare potential thieves has almost the same capacity for reducing burglaries as does paying for 24-hour home monitoring. This strengthens the argument. It tells us that we don't really need to buy the system. This is incorrect.

(B) A frequent consequence of home burglary is identity theft, the cost of which is not taken into account when experts consider the average loss to victims. This is the correct answer. It clearly states another economic reason for installing the system. If identity theft is not counted into the average loss (and it is a FREQUENT consequence), obviously this will lead to a loss of value over 3,000.

(C) Home break-ins are far more common in suburban areas located near commercial districts than they are in purely residential areas. This is irrelevant

(D) 24-hour home monitoring, unlike traditional alarms that simply alert the police, uses a team of security workers who electronically survey the home for threats. This is irrelevant

(E) The bulk of the cost of home monitoring comes from paying human employees to continually report on the home's condition. This is irrelevant

tisrar02 wrote:Security Expert: Everyday thousands of people find themselves victims of burglary. The average loss, based on the value of commonly stolen property, is roughly $10,000. Alarm systems with 24-hour monitoring dramatically reduce the chances of a break-in. Though this is a desirable result, a lifetime subscription to such a service costs about $13,000, and so it cannot be recommended for a typical homeowner.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion of the argument?


(A) One study has shown that simply putting up alarm warning signs to scare potential thieves has almost the same capacity for reducing burglaries as does paying for 24-hour home monitoring. your answer

(B) A frequent consequence of home burglary is identity theft, the cost of which is not taken into account when experts consider the average loss to victims. correct

OA and explanation after some constructive discussions!