PrepTest 155, Section 4, Question 8
Statistics show clearly that in those countries with(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThe countries with(12 more words not shown)
- BVery severe penalties(16 more words not shown)
- CThe higher a(14 more words not shown)
- DOnly a relatively(14 more words not shown)
- EAll countries impose(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did the penalties change anyone's mind, or is something else producing the lower accident rate? The statistics tell us that a smaller percentage of drivers have alcohol-related accidents in countries with the most severe penalties. That fits a deterrence story: perhaps people avoid driving drunk because they fear the punishment. But fitting that story doesn't establish that it is the explanation.
What if those countries have removed repeat drunk drivers from the roads by imprisoning them? The remaining drivers could have fewer alcohol-related accidents even if the threat of punishment never persuaded anyone to behave differently. That is a possible explanation to investigate, not an additional fact about these countries.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the claim that the figures refute people who doubt deterrence. I'd look for another reason for the difference in accident rates. We can accept the statistics while questioning whether fear of severe penalties caused them.
Working the answers
- A
The argument compares percentages of drivers, not the total number of accidents in countries of different sizes. Knowing that the largest countries have less severe penalties doesn't itself explain the difference in the percentages. We'd need some further connection between population size and the alcohol-related accident rate.
- BCorrect
This gives us a different explanation from the imprisonment possibility. Severe penalties occur only in countries where alcohol use is rare. With less drinking in the first place, there may be fewer opportunities for alcohol-related crashes, whether or not the penalties deter anyone. That makes the statistics less convincing as evidence of deterrence.
Rare alcohol use doesn't mean nobody drinks, and this answer doesn't prove penalties have no effect. It gives us another relevant difference between the countries, undermining the claim that the accident figures settle what the penalties do.
- C
Speed limits may affect accident frequency, but C doesn't connect different speed limits with the countries being compared. It also concerns accidents generally. We would have to add facts about which countries have which limits before this could explain their different alcohol-related accident rates.
- D
A low chance of getting caught doesn't establish that people ignore a severe penalty. Some might still be deterred by the risk, and the answer doesn't say that the apprehension rate differs between the two groups of countries. It therefore doesn't supply the needed explanation for their different outcomes.
- E
This compares penalties for causing an accident with penalties for being caught driving drunk without causing one. It says all countries make that distinction. A shared distinction doesn't explain why the countries with the most severe penalties have a lower alcohol-related accident rate or show that their penalties fail to deter.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.