Q8 - Statistics show clearly that in those countries

[smiller]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premise:
(According to statistics) in countries with the most severe penalties for driving while intoxicated, a smaller percentage of drivers have alcohol-related accidents.

Conclusion:
People are deterred from driving drunk by the prospect of severe penalties.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument seems to rely on the popular "correlation proves causation" flaw. We're told that severe penalties for DWI are observed in the same countries where a smaller percentage of drivers have alcohol-related accidents, but this doesn't prove that one factor causes the other. Maybe people avoid driving drunk because it's socially unacceptable in those countries, not because of the harsh penalties. Maybe these are countries where any alcohol use is frowned upon, and only a small number of people drink at all. The argument hasn't addressed these very reasonable alternative explanations. A correct answer is likely to suggest this type of alternative as the real cause.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Notice that the premise of the argument is based on the percentage of drivers in a country who have alcohol-related accidents. Answer choice (A) involves population size, not percentage of the population. Is choice (A) describing the same countries as the stimulus or different countries? We have no way of knowing, so we don't know how this answer choice impacts the argument.

(B) This answer suggests an alternative explanation for the smaller percentage of drivers having alcohol-related accidents: they live in countries where alcohol use in general is rare. That could be the reason for the lower accident rate, rather than the penalties themselves.

(C) We don't want to eliminate this answer just because it discusses speed limits. They could somehow be relevant, but the answer choice should indicate exactly how speed limits relate to the original argument and how speed limits relate in a way that weakens the argument. However, this answer doesn't show how speed limits are relevant. That's why we will eliminate it.

(D) This is a very appealing trap answer. It seems to undermine the idea that harsh penalties deter people from driving drunk. If you're unlikely to be apprehended, you might not worry about penalties. However, choice (D) ignores a main piece of support in the argument. The argument bases its conclusion on alcohol-related accidents, not on people who are apprehended while driving drunk. Choice (B) weakens the argument—the link between the premises and the conclusion—by providing an alternative explanation for that key piece of support, making it a better answer for this question.

(E) This answer choice, if true, might make people more cautious about causing an accident while driving drunk. However, the conclusion indicates that people will be deterred from driving drunk at all, not just that they will be deterred from causing accidents while drunk.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Weaken questions in LSAT Logical Reasoning are testing your understanding of arguments, and whether premises adequately support a conclusion. When you're asked to undermine an argument, look for the answer that attacks the link between the premises and the conclusion.

#officialexplanation