Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q8 Statistics show clearly that

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

Start practicing free

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.

Conclusion

This refutes those who claim that would-be drunk drivers will not be deterred by the prospect of severe penalties.

rephrase: Would-be drunk drivers will be deterred by the prospect of severe penalties.

Evidence

In countries with the most severe penalties for drunk driving, a smaller percentage of drivers have traffic accidents involving alcohol.

Evaluate

Any time the evidence includes a statistic, study, artifact, or experiment, it's likely that the author's conclusion will announce or assume some causal interpretation of that evidence. We use our Explain Curious Fact mindset for these.

Curious Fact .... why is there a correlation between countries with severe penalties for drunk driving and lower % of drivers having traffic accidents involving alcohol?

Author's Explanation ... the harsh penalties scare citizens out of drunk driving.

As always, we consider the two pressure points of such an argument: 1. Alternate Explanations for the curious fact 2. the plausibility of the author's explanation

Whenever the author presents a correlation between X and Y and concludes/assumes that X causes Y, we reflexively consider two possible alternate explanations: - Reverse Cause (maybe Y causes X) - 3rd Factor (maybe X and Y are both connected to some other factor Z)

Here, it doesn't make much sense to say that . So, if we're going to weaken via Alternate Explanation, it will probably be a 3rd factor. For example, maybe the countries with the most severe penalties for drunk driving also happen to have cities that are more walkable / public transportation that is more usable.

We could say,

Goal

It's more common to weaken with an Alternate Explanation, so we'll primarily look for that, but we might otherwise see a correct answer that hurts the plausibility of the idea that (f.e. maybe citizens have no idea what the penalties are for drunk driving).

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

The countries with the largest
No Impact: largest populations
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.
1% picked this
Correct
Very severe penalties against driving
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.
85% picked this
The higher a country’s speed
Unclear Impact: speed limit
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.
1% picked this
Only a relatively small minority
Weak Impact
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.
10% picked this
All countries impose severer penalties
No Impact
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.
3% 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