Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT155 S4 Q8 Explanation

Statistics show clearly that

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Statistics show clearly that in those countries with the most severe penalties for driving while intoxicated, a smaller percentage of drivers have traffic accidents involving alcohol use than in other countries. This refutes those who claim be deterred by the prospect of severe penalties.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
8.

Which one of the following would, if true, most undermine

Answer choices

  1. No Impact: largest populations1% picked this

    The countries with the largest populations do not have severe penalties for

    The raw number of population size makes no difference in this argument, because the statistic we're examining is talking about the percentage of drivers involved in alcohol related accidents. These countries with unusually low %'s of drivers involved in alcohol related accidents could be among the most populous countries, the least populous, or both.

  2. Correct85% picked this

    Very severe penalties against driving while intoxicated are in effect only in countries in which

    Why this is right

    This identifies a 3rd Factor Alternate Explanation. The author thinks that alcohol related traffic accidents are low because the severe penalties act as a deterrent to keep people from drunk driving. This answer allows us to say, "Nah, the reason you see less alcohol-related accidents in this country isn't because the drunk driving laws are severe; it's just because alcohol use is very rare." There might be countries where the dominant religion heavily discourages drinking. And the laws of that country put very severe penalties against drunk driving, but really what's keeping there from being alcohol-related accidents is that people there don't drink (for religious reasons). This answer is technically a conditional. If we think it would be useful, we would think to ourselves about how the contrapositive sounds: If alcohol use in a → then there are not severe country is common penalties for drunk driving This makes it seem like the effect of "severe penalties" on drunk driving is never really getting tested. We wouldn't test the effectiveness of a mosquito repellant in an area where mosquitoes were rare. If there were some rule like, "Wherever mosquitoes are common, you won't find this mosquito repellant", then we really have no way to judge whether the repellant actually discourages mosquitoes.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

  3. Unclear Impact: speed limit1% picked this

    The higher a country’s speed limits, the more frequent traffic accidents tend to be

    This answer is impossible to relate to the conversation at hand, because it talks about speed limits and traffic accidents (in general, not specifically alcohol-related ones). We'd have no way to connect this information to the topic at hand. Do countries with severe penalties for drunk driving have higher speed limits than average? Lower? Moderate? We have no idea. Are the traffic accidents alluded to in this answer alcohol-related? We have no idea.

  4. Weak Impact10% picked this

    Only a relatively small minority of those who drive while intoxicated are actually apprehended

    This somewhat weakens the plausibility of the author's explanation. She is arguing that severe penalties for drunk driving deter some drunk people from driving. If, however, those drunk people knew that only a small minority of drunk drivers are ever caught in the act, they would have less to fear and thus be less deterred from drunk driving. However, this answer isn't clarifying whether drunk people who are considering drunk driving are actually aware that only a small minority of drunk drivers get caught. They might not realize they have a good chance of not being apprehended. Furthermore, "only a relatively small minority" could still be like 15% of drunk drivers. If I told you, "there's only a 1 in 6 chance you'll get caught if you drive home drunk, but if you do, you know that the severe penalty is 20 years in jail", would you be deterred? Or would you accept those odds? Chances are, if we're scared of the stiff penalty of getting caught, we will still be somewhat nervous about doing something even if we stand a pretty good chance of getting away with it. Ultimately, this weakens somewhat, but it doesn't have the dramatic weakening effect that the correct answer has.

  5. No Impact3% picked this

    All countries impose severer penalties on those who cause accidents while driving intoxicated than on those who are

    Since this applies to all countries, it really won't inform any judgments we're hoping to make about whether countries with the most severe penalties are thereby deterring people from driving drunk.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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