In Berinia, the age at which people could begin to drink alcohol legal

Paradox:
There has been a decreased in traffic deaths.
Yet, the alcohol consumption of those under 21 was the same as before the new regulation.

A: For the population as a whole, annual alcohol consumption is no lower now than it was in 1990
If consumption before and now is the same, how do we resolve the traffic-death decline? We are left in the dark here. OUT!

B: Alcohol consumption away from home, for example in bar and restaurants, is much lower among people under 21
than it was in 1990.
Most of the alcohol drinking is not away from home (or in bars)... Less drink and drive... This explains the paradox. BINGO!

C: The proportion of people under 21 who own a car is higher now than it was in 1990.
Okay? But why did the traffic-death decline after the new regulation. We are left in the dark here. OUT!

D: Alcohol consumption is lower among people under 21 than among adults in mist other age -groups
Still doesn't resolve the paradox.

E: Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people over 21 have increased slightly since 1990.
Still doesn't resolve the paradox about traffic-death decline vs. same alcohol consumption

The answer is B. Even if the alcohol consumption was the same, the traffic death decline was realized because of less drink and drive.

I feel this is the best answer available. How do we connect the dots here??
argument says- people under the age of 21 drink as much as they did before
Accidents related deaths among 21 age group reduced.
how does alcohol drinking away from home reduce the traffic deaths? Why should we assume or think that they drive back home after drinking?

dear experts, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, eakabuah, nightblade354
I need your help.
I crossed off B because I though the legal drinking age was 21. so I though those who are under 21 are not allowed drink. it does not matter where are allowed or where are not allowed.

please explain further.

Hi Zoe

Let me try to address your query.

The point you have raised has been addressed in the last sentence of the stimulus, which states:

...surveys show that people in that age-group drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.

Therefore, the amount of alcohol consumption (per capita) in that age group has not reduced despite the increase of age limit. This means that, despite the illegality of doing so, people under the age of 21 continue to consume alcohol. Now, we need to resolve the paradox that despite such continuing consumption of alcohol, the number of accidents in that age group has come down. Option (B) provides a possible explanation - if people under 21 continue to consume alcohol at the same rate, but are now increasingly doing so at home, then driving under the influence would likely reduce significantly, explaining the reduction in number of accidents.

Hope this clarifies.

The legal drinking age in Berinia is 21 BUT the passage tells us that "people in that age-group [the under-21s] drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990." So, the young people of Berinia are not obeying this rule very well. They might be breaking the law now, but they're definitely still drinking.

Let's look at the passage before taking another look at (B). We're asked to find the answer choice that best resolves the following discrepancy:

Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people under 21 have decreased significantly since 1990

BUT

surveys show that people in that age-group drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990

Now, (B) tells us:

We're told alcohol consumption away from home is much lower among people under 21 than it was in 1990, but the passage tells us that people under 21 drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.

This means they must be drinking at home. If they're drinking at home, it's likely they don't have to travel around much after they've been drinking -- for example, they don't have to get home again from a bar or a restaurant.

Because the under-21s spending less time in a car after drinking, it's likely alcohol-related traffic deaths will be reduced. However, because they're drinking at home, we can still explain why the surveys still show that the under-21s are drinking just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.

(B) helps resolve the discrepancy in the passage, so (B) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

hello experts,
How can anyone expect that people might be driving less just because they are drinking less outside home.
although I chose it, It just didn't strike.
Maybe be there is a rule that drink and drive is so illegal that people can be imprisoned for lifetime. So, they come with a non-alcoholic friend, who drives them home.

All I'm saying is sometimes, even in easy question, it just doesn't strike, which eats up precious time.

Patrons of bars and restaurants have to get back home somehow! And some significant fraction of them will get back home by driving themselves.[/quote]




STOP if your reasoning includes "maybe", "might", "could", etc. At that point, you no longer have a basis on which to argue.




But surely you're not trying to say that this will happen 100% of the time! Some significant fraction of drinkers will still drive themselves home. That fraction of people can account for the finding described in the passage.

Keep in mind that the question asks "Which of the following, if true of Berinia, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?" and not "Which of the following, if true of Berinia, DEFINITELY resolves the apparent discrepancy?".

Can we come up with scenarios in which (B) would fail to resolve the discrepancy? Sure. But (B) gives us a very reasonable explanation for the apparent discrepancy described in the passage, and none of the other choices do the same. (B) is the choice that most helps to resolve the discrepancy, so it's the best answer.

More broadly, if your interpretation of a question isn't 100% precise, then you're going to have a much harder time getting through that question. In this case, processing that subtle distinction in this question might have helped you get through it a bit more quickly.

I hope that helps a bit!

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.