Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q14 Steven: The allowable blood alcohol

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Steven: The allowable blood alcohol level for drivers should be cut in half.

Steven's 1st idea

We should cut in half the allowable blood alcohol limit for drivers. Does M disagree?

Not sure. Miguel doesn't get into any should / shouldn't language. He's only concerned with what would / wouldn't transpire if we did lower blood alcohol level.

Steven's 2nd idea

With a lowered limit, social drinkers will be deterred from drinking and driving Does M disagree?

Not sure. Miguel never comments on social drinkers.

Steven's 3rd idea

If social drinkers are deterred from drinking and driving, there will be a significant increase in highway safety. Does M disagree?

Yes. Miguel is saying it will have little effect on highway safety (since heavy drinkers are the biggest danger and a reduced limit wouldn't have any effect on them).

Goal

We seem to be arguing over whether or not lowering the blood alcohol limit would significantly increase highway safety.

Steven thinks YES, because social drinkers will be deterred. Miguel thinks NO, because it won't affect heavy drinkers, and they are the most important part of the drunk driving problem.

14.

Steven and Miguel's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following statements?

Correct
Social drinkers who drink and
Why this is right
Steven would say YES, because he thinks that if we lower the blood alcohol limit, thereby deterring social drinkers from drunk driving, we will significantly improve highway safety. If reducing drunk driving by social drinkers would significantly improve highway safety, then it must be that drunk driving by social drinkers currently poses a significant threat to highway safety. Migeul would say NO, because he thinks deterring social drinkers would have little effect on highway safety, and he explicitly identifies the most important aspect of the drunken driving problem as heavy drinkers. Technically, that 2nd idea is not disagreeing with the language of "substantial". Cancer is not the most common cause of death (in a non-COVID world, heart disease is), but it's still a substantial cause of death. But the 1st idea shows clear disagreement. If eliminating social drunk driving "would have little effect", then social drunk driving does not pose a substantial threat currently. There is a tendency in Disagree questions that if the disagreement is very obvious and explicit (lowering limit will greatly increase safety vs. lowering limit will not greatly increase safety), then the answer ends up testing the underlying rationale for the opposing positions, rather than the opposing positions themselves.
Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% picked this
There is a direct correlation
Both Probably Agree
To the extent that both people are worried about the consequence of drunk driving, they would probably both agree that there's an important connection between a driver's blood alcohol level and their ability to drive safely. Miguel wasn't saying that "lowering the blood alcohol limit will have little effect" because he thinks that blood alcohol is unrelated to driving performance. He was saying lowering the limit will have little effect because the people with the highest blood alcohol level (heavy drinkers) are already ignoring the present limit.
7% picked this
A driver with a blood
Both Probably Agree
To the extent that both people are worried about the consequence of drunk driving, they would probably both agree that we should be worried about someone driving at a level above the current legal limit. This shouldn't seem too tempting superficially, since we know the disagreement is centered on "what would happen if we lowered the blood alcohol limit", not on what's the case with the current blood alcohol limit.
6% picked this
Some drivers whose blood alcohol
Disagreement is Extreme
Because this is so weakly worded, it's very hard to disagree with. Miguel would be our best shot, but can we infer that he believes: there is not a single driver whose blood alcohol level is lower than the current legal limit who poses a danger to the public? Disagreeing with this answer is too strong a position to be inferred from Miguel. Miguel might believe that there is a 90 year old driver whose blood alcohol level is lower than the current limit (he's totally sober), but he still poses a danger to the public because of his cataracts.
18% picked this
A driver with a blood
Agreement is Extreme
Because this is so strongly worded ("no danger"), it's very hard to agree with. Can we infer that Miguel would agree to this: there is not a single driver whose blood alcohol level is slightly greater half than the current legal limit who poses a danger to the public? That sounds too strong for Miguel to sign-off on. He might believe that there is a 90 year old driver whose blood alcohol level is slightly higher than half the current limit, but he still poses a danger to the public because of his cataracts. He might believe that there is a heavy drinker who's blood alcohol level is only slightly greater than half the current limit (he just left church and hasn't started his real drinking for the day yet) that still poses a danger to the public. The author wasn't saying that social drinkers (who would be more likely to have a blood alcohol slightly greater than half the current limit) don't pose any danger. He was just saying they're not a significant source of the drunk driving problem.
9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free