Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Steven: The allowable blood alcohol level for drivers should [#permalink]
19 Mar 2005, 20:25
0% (00:00) correct
100% (02:56) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Steven: The allowable blood alcohol level for drivers should be cut in half. With this reduced limit, social drinkers will be deterred from drinking and driving, resulting in significantly increased highway safety.
Miguel: No lowering the current allowable blood alcohol level would have little effect on highway safety because it would not address the most important aspect of the drunken driving problem, which is the danger to the public posed by heavy drinkers, who often drive with a blood alcohol level of twice the current legal limit.
Steven and Miguelâ€™s statements provide the most support for that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following statements?
(A) Social drinkers who drink and drive pose a substantial threat to the public.
(B) There is a direct correlation between a driverâ€™s blood alcohol level and the driverâ€™s ability to drive safely.
(C) A driver with a blood alcohol level above the current legal limit poses a substantial danger to the public.
(D) Some drivers whose blood alcohol level is lower than the current legal limit pose a danger to the public.
(E) A driver with a blood alcohol level slightly greater than half the current legal limit poses no danger to the public.
Steven's argument is that by altering the blood alcohol level of social drinkers, it would server as a deterrent and one could significantly impact public safety.
Miguel's argument is that even if you altered the blood alcohol level, there would still be some heavy drinkers who would impact public safety. So, they disagree about Social drinkers and the resultant public safety threat. One says, you change blood alcohol limit then they would not pose any probs and the other says they would still be a problem to public safety.
Yes, but the statement must be derived based on the statements in the argument.
E) A driver with a blood alcohol level slightly greater than half the current legal limit poses no danger to the public.
In E, a statement is being made about slightly greater than half the current legal limit, which is not discussed in the argument. We cannot say if they would agree or disagree to it. All Miguel says is that heavy drinkers with twice the blood alcohol amount pose a serious threat. From this statements about slightly above half the current limit cannot be derived.
What is this question asking for ?
"Steven and Miguelâ€™s statements provide the most support for that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following statements?"
Provide the most support for what ?
D is wrong as you may still pose a danger even when you're below the blood alcohol level (maybe you drunk just enough to get tipsy but not fail the blood alcohol test)
That is why steven proposed cutting the lmit by half
http://blog.ryandumlao.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/IMG_20130807_232118.jpg The GMAT is the biggest point of worry for most aspiring applicants, and with good reason. It’s another standardized test when most of us...