#14 - Steven: The allowable blood alcohol level for drivers

[lenihil]

Dear PowerScore,

Could you please explain why (C) (D) (E) are wrong?

I think that Miguel agrees with (C) and disagrees with (D) (E). He thinks that it's the heavy drinkers who pose a substantial danger to the public. However, I don't know how to infer how Steven thinks of these answers.

Thank you for your help.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi lenihil!

Answer choice (C): Based on his statements, we know that Miguel would agree with this statement. But Steven did not address drivers with blood alcohol levels above the current legal limit. So we do not know for sure what Steven would say to this. If we don't know what one speaker would say to a an answer choice, then it is incorrect. For the correct answer in a Point at Issue question, we need to know what both speakers would say.

Answer choice (D): Steven would agree with this statement because this is why he wants to lower the legal blood alcohol level. As for Miguel, we cannot be sure that he would disagree with this statement. He doesn't say that no drivers with blood alcohol levels lower than the current legal limit pose a danger to the public--just that overall this would have little effect on highway safety.

Answer choice (E): We don't really have enough evidence in the stimulus to know what either Steven or Miguel would say to this answer choice.

Remember that Point at Issue questions are in the same family as Must Be True questions. If you can't prove what a speaker would think of an answer choice based on their statements in the stimulus, then it can't be the point at issue between the speakers and you can eliminate that answer choice. For the correct answer, you must know what each speaker would say to the statement in the answer choice and you have to be able to clearly say that one of the speakers would say "Yes, I agree with that statement" and the other speaker would say "No, I disagree with that statement."

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[lenihil]

Dear Kelsey,

Thank you. It is all clear now.

[a19]

Hi Powerscore!

So, I have a quick question about this one. I recognize that both speakers contend there are two different groups which contribute to the issue of drunk driving. I completely understand the answer and answer choices, but theoretically, is there another point at issue: that one believes lowering the limit would increase safety, while the other thinks no, the law about blood alcohol levels doesn't seem to make a difference one way or another? Moreover, is this secondary point at issue implicitly given when Miguel knocks out Steven's premise stating that social drinkers are posing a threat?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi a19,

That's definitely another point at issue between the speakers--good job! In fact, you can get that directly from the language of the arguments. Steven says that cutting BAL will "result[] in significantly increased highway safety," whereas Miguel says "[n]o, lowering the current allowable blood alcohol level would have little effect on highway safety."

Unfortunately, that specific point at issue is not in any of the answers, so we have to dig a little deeper for the point at issue described in answer choice A. That's not an uncommon occurrence, by the way, in Point at Issue and Point of Agreement questions.

Hope this helps!

Jeremy

[yuxuan]

I wrongfully chose B for this question. I think B is a wrong ans because S believes that reducing blood alcohol level will increase highway safety and M believes that reducing blood alcohol level will have limited impact on highway safety. Plus, B says "the driver's ability to drive safely", driver's ability to drive safely is different from highway safety. Drive safely does not guarantee highway safety, there are trashes on the road.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi yuxuan,

This is exactly what you should be doing with every wrong answer: look specifically into the reason it is incorrect. There is a simpler reason why answer choice B is incorrect. A "direct correlation" between two things means that we know for every incremental increase (or decrease) in one side of the correlation, the other side will incrementally increase (or decrease) as well. The two speakers' statements do not give us enough information to know whether they believe (or do not believe) that there is such a precise (direct) correlation between blood alcohol level and driving ability. We would need a stronger assertion of that relationship explicitly in the arguments, or some kind of data references in the arguments, to know whether these speakers believe the correlation is "direct." We don't have those things in either speaker's argument. Since we don't know what either speaker thinks about the claim in answer choice B, we don't know whether they would agree or disagree about that claim.

Remember, one of the most common wrong answer types on Point at Issue questions is an answer where we don't know one (or both) of the speaker's positions.

I hope this helps!

[miriamson07]

Hi, I have a few questions about the assumptions that can be made here.

In reference to Kelsey’s answer:
1. I hesitate to conclude that Miguel would agree with answer choice C, because of the way “a driver with a blood alcohol level above the current legal limit poses a substantial danger to the public” is phrased. Wouldn’t this mean that any driver with a blood alcohol level above the current legal limit would pose the substantial danger? All we know from Miguel’s statement is that he thinks heavy drinkers pose a substantial danger, not all.

2. To conclude that Steven agrees with answer choice D, we would have to assume that social drinkers have a blood alcohol level below the current legal limit. But what if social drinkers’ blood alcohol level is actually above the limit, but cutting the limit by half deters them for other reasons? Like for example, the limit is so close to social drinking blood alcohol level that social drinkers feel they can easily get away with drinking?

I’d appreciate your thoughts very much. Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

I agree with your thinking on these, miriamson07, and that points out even further why those are both wrong answers. It's just not clear exactly what either person would say in response to those statements. We need total clarity in the right answer. We need clear evidence that one of them would say "yes., that's true," while the other would say "no, that's false."

I think that in response to answer C, BOTh speakers would say "sure, some of them do pose a substantial danger." And neither one is saying anything about any one particular driver. Rather, they are both talking about the overall effect on safety of the proposed change.

I also feel the same way about answer D, in that both of our people could say "yes, some of those drivers could pose a substantial danger." But again, it's not about any one driver. The argument is about the cumulative effect of a whole group of drivers, specifically social drinkers.

I agree with Kelsey that Steven would probably agree with answer D, but it's not absolutely clear. And I just don't know what Miguel would say, so it's for sure a loser!

[miriamson07]

I agree with your thinking on these, miriamson07, and that points out even further why those are both wrong answers. It's just not clear exactly what either person would say in response to those statements. We need total clarity in the right answer. We need clear evidence that one of them would say "yes., that's true," while the other would say "no, that's false."

I think that in response to answer C, BOTh speakers would say "sure, some of them do pose a substantial danger." And neither one is saying anything about any one particular driver. Rather, they are both talking about the overall effect on safety of the proposed change.

I also feel the same way about answer D, in that both of our people could say "yes, some of those drivers could pose a substantial danger." But again, it's not about any one driver. The argument is about the cumulative effect of a whole group of drivers, specifically social drinkers.

I agree with Kelsey that Steven would probably agree with answer D, but it's not absolutely clear. And I just don't know what Miguel would say, so it's for sure a loser!

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your answer here. I’d like to ask a follow up question if you don’t mind.

For these types of questions, is it possible for it to be inconclusive as to what one speaker/author would think about the point raised in the answer choice? And in such cases, that answer choice would be wrong? I always feel a bit iffy about leaving the opinion of one speaker as “inconclusive,” because I feel there might be a yes or no answer that one just needs to think a bit harder to find.