- Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:36 am
#97171
Hi lawstudent99!
Happy to address why answer choice (D) is incorrect.
This is a weaken question, so a good place to start is by identifying the conclusion, which is the last sentence in the stimulus: "This refutes those who claim that would-be drunk drivers will not be deterred by the prospect of severe penalties."
The wording for this conclusion seems somewhat confusing, or at least not the most straightforward. The prior sentence says that statistics show that in countries with more serious penalties for drunk driving, a smaller percentage of drivers get into accidents involving alcohol. Effectively, the conclusion is saying that these statistics are evidence that the law can deter people who would otherwise drive drunk. That seems to be making a claim about a causal relationship--the cause is the law, and the effect pertains to the prevalence of drunk driving.
Given the question stem, we want to weaken the connection that the author is making between these statistics and the conclusion that the author reaches about their significance. There are a variety of ways that an answer choice can weaken a cause-and-effect relationship--e.g., by showing an alternative cause, showing the existence of the cause without the effect, showing the existence of the effect without the cause, or showing that the causal relationship is actually reversed.
Before turning to (D), consider the correct answer, (B): "Very severe penalties against driving while intoxicated are in effect only in countries in which alcohol use is rare." This weakens the conclusion by showing an alternative cause. Instead of the law causing a decreased prevalence of drunk driving, it's saying that the cause is instead that very few people drink in these countries in the first place, which is why a smaller percentage of drivers have accidents involving alcohol.
Answer choice (D) states, "Only a relatively small minority of those who drive while intoxicated are actually apprehended while doing so." Given the conclusion--namely, that the mentioned statistics show that the law deters drunk driving, I can see why (D) might be a compelling answer. It seems almost as if it is saying that the law is not being efficacious in deterring drunk driving because most people who drunk drive get away with it. However, drunk driving laws might still be efficacious with that small minority. Given that possibility, answer choice (D) doesn't ultimately address the causal relationship of the law deterring drunk driving. The law might still deter drunk driving, even if it's only able to deter a small proportion of it overall.
Hope that helps!
