We'll attack this question with some framework + prethinking.
Framework: Expectation vs Actuality
Pre-thinking: Link the two relevant topics
This question starts off with the expectation vs actuality framework
Expectation: 3% (low percentage) with radar detectors ->might expect 3% of ticketed cars to have radar detectors
Actuality: 3% (low percentage) with radar detectors -> actually 33% of ticketed cars have radar detectors
Conclusion: Those using radar detectors are MORE likely to exceed speed limit REGULARLY.
Keep in mind that the word "regularly" adds a dimension of "degree" into the conclusion. It's not a simple relationship between "detector = speed more", but rather "detector = consistently speed more"
So our pre-thinking should be to find an answer choice that connects those two topics:
1) something to do with "detector"
2) something to do with "consistently speeding more" -- keyword 'consistently' is important
(B) [Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ] are [ more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly]
than are drivers who are not ticketed.
So does (B) talk about the detector? Not directly BUT it does so indirectly.
[Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ]
We already established before that a good percentage of those who are ticketed (33%) are those WITH detectors. Thus (B) is already referencing this segment of the population. Then the second half says this group (those with detectors) are more likely to exceed the speed limit REGULARLY -- fully captures the conclusion we had. In fact, it almost sounds like a repeat of the conclusion -- but it does so by substituting that first part ("detectors") with something slightly different.
(A) [ Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors ] are [less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed
limit ] than are drivers who do not.
1) "detector" -- YES
2) "consistently speeding more" -- NO, goes in opposite direction and says LESS likely.
(C) [ The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ] was greater than the number of
vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
1) "detector" -- no, this is talking about the # of vehicles...not the population of those that speeded. Notice the other answer choices reference "drivers" -- not "the number of vehicles"
2) "consistently speeding more" -- no
(D) [ Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ] were ticketed more than once in the
time period covered by the report.
1) "detector" -- no, this is talking about some detail about a portion of the vehicles -- we only care about the drivers that used the "detector" -- not the details about some irrelevant segment
2) "consistently speeding more" -- no
(E) [ Drivers on Maryland highways ] exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state
highways not covered in the report.
1) "detector"-- no, talks about drivers in Maryland as a whole. The conclusion only cares about drivers who used the detector, not the whole group.
Framework: Expectation vs Actuality
Pre-thinking: Link the two relevant topics
This question starts off with the expectation vs actuality framework
Expectation: 3% (low percentage) with radar detectors ->might expect 3% of ticketed cars to have radar detectors
Actuality: 3% (low percentage) with radar detectors -> actually 33% of ticketed cars have radar detectors
Conclusion: Those using radar detectors are MORE likely to exceed speed limit REGULARLY.
Keep in mind that the word "regularly" adds a dimension of "degree" into the conclusion. It's not a simple relationship between "detector = speed more", but rather "detector = consistently speed more"
So our pre-thinking should be to find an answer choice that connects those two topics:
1) something to do with "detector"
2) something to do with "consistently speeding more" -- keyword 'consistently' is important
(B) [Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ] are [ more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly]
than are drivers who are not ticketed.
So does (B) talk about the detector? Not directly BUT it does so indirectly.
[Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ]
We already established before that a good percentage of those who are ticketed (33%) are those WITH detectors. Thus (B) is already referencing this segment of the population. Then the second half says this group (those with detectors) are more likely to exceed the speed limit REGULARLY -- fully captures the conclusion we had. In fact, it almost sounds like a repeat of the conclusion -- but it does so by substituting that first part ("detectors") with something slightly different.
(A) [ Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors ] are [less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed
limit ] than are drivers who do not.
1) "detector" -- YES
2) "consistently speeding more" -- NO, goes in opposite direction and says LESS likely.
(C) [ The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ] was greater than the number of
vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
1) "detector" -- no, this is talking about the # of vehicles...not the population of those that speeded. Notice the other answer choices reference "drivers" -- not "the number of vehicles"
2) "consistently speeding more" -- no
(D) [ Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit ] were ticketed more than once in the
time period covered by the report.
1) "detector" -- no, this is talking about some detail about a portion of the vehicles -- we only care about the drivers that used the "detector" -- not the details about some irrelevant segment
2) "consistently speeding more" -- no
(E) [ Drivers on Maryland highways ] exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state
highways not covered in the report.
1) "detector"-- no, talks about drivers in Maryland as a whole. The conclusion only cares about drivers who used the detector, not the whole group.