Driving under the influence is a more severe problem among

Question

Driving under the influence is a more severe problem among college students at rural and suburban universities than at urban universities. Social scientists wanted to determine how much of the problem is due to the distance students must drive to obtain alcohol. They looked at police records for incidents involving students at a number of universities, and compared those with the mean distances between student housing and bars and liquor stores. The longer the distances, the more likely students were to be arrested or involved in accidents. 
 
Which of the following, if true, would it be most important to take into account in evaluating the result?

(A) Many college students do not purchase alcohol at bars or liquor stores.
(B) Students at rural, suburban, and urban universities are arrested for driving under the influence more frequently than are non-student members of their communities.
(C) The average enrollment at urban universities is greater than that at rural and suburban universities.
(D) Local sheriff's departments near rural and suburban universities devote more resources to identifying and arresting those driving under the influence than do urban police forces.
(E) The number of bars and liquor stores per square mile is nearly five times as high in urban areas as it is in rural and suburban areas.

PrashantPonde · Answer

I would go with (D). If Local sheriffs near rural/suburban universities are devoting more resources than do urban police forces, then it undermines the claim about the correlation of number of accidents with mean distances between student housing and bars and liquor stores. Choice (E) looks close, but it incorrectly focuses on number/density of stores, rather than mean distance between housing and liquor stores.

dhruvd · Answer

My answer is choice D because it gives a clear reason as to why more number students get caught in the rural areas when compared to students in urban areas. If the police in urban areas spends less time on drivers under influence then beginning condition of the argument is false and we shouldn't even proceed towards a conclusion.

Carcass · Answer

Good job guys

D what do you think about the question ?'

adesai88 · Answer

Central Idea : More distance between bar / liquor store and rural / suburban universities --> More student caught driving under influence

IF we are not conPOE will help us better

(A) Many college students do not purchase alcohol at bars or liquor stores. -->   Incorrect. Out of context  
(B) Students at rural, suburban, and urban universities are arrested for driving under the influence more frequently than are non-student members of their communities. -->   Incorrect. Comparisons are not between students and non student communities 
(C) The average enrollment at urban universities is greater than that at rural and suburban universities. -->   Incorrect. 180 degree. this means more students from urban universities should be caught driving under influences 
(D) Local sheriff's departments near rural and suburban universities devote more resources to identifying and arresting those driving under the influence than do urban police forces. -->  CORRECT. It give alternative possibility for higher number of cases by shifting focus from distance between bar and university to actions of police.  
(E) The number of bars and liquor stores per square mile is nearly five times as high in urban areas as it is in rural and suburban areas. -->  Incorrect. Distance between university and bar / liquor shop is concerning factor not their number.

avohden · Answer

This appears to be a GMAT Hacks question of the day. It appeared on 2/26/2013. The   Official Explanation    is as follows:

Answer: D    This is an evidence question, only with an atypical format for the answer choices. Each one is simply a statement; it doesn't begin with "Whether." The argument hinges on the difference between students at rural and suburban schools and those at urban schools. The result mentioned in the question is that the difference between those two groups of students, in terms of driving under the influence, is explained by the distances between housing and sources of liquor. We're looking for a choice that would either strengthen or weaken that claim. Consider each choice in turn: (A) If we knew that "all" students didn't purchase alcohol from these sources, this might cast some doubt on the claim, but "many" leaves an awful lot to be desired. It doesn't directly affect the argument. (B) This is a different comparison--students vs. non-students. We need a choice that focuses on the comparison drawn in the passage. (C) Enrollment doesn't matter, since the argument is phrased in terms of likelihood that a certain student would drive under the influence, not the absolute number of students. (D) This is correct. The conclusion was drawn based on police records. If this choice is true, students driving under the influence near rural and suburban universities are more likely to be caught doing so (and thus appear in police records) than their counterparts at urban universities. (E) The density of bars and liquor stores doesn't matter; it doesn't address the distance traveled, or amount driven under the influence, of the students in these areas.

louisbharnabas · Answer

Dear Carcass,

I know this is a very old question, but i just came across it.

The last line of the argument says "The longer the distances, the more likely students were to be arrested or involved in accidents."; option D only address a part of the result, but "longer the distances, the more likely students were to be involved in accidents" has not been addressed.

Can we still take it to be the answer or is it possible that the question could be refined further?

Regards,
Louis

gmatFalcon · Answer

Can somebody Explain why E is incorrect ? and Why D is correct ? I am so confused

chinmayrav · Answer

With E, can't we conclude that students would have had to travel a greater distance to and from liquor stores due to the a lesser density of those stores? 
Essentially those stores are more sparse than in urban areas.

Posted from my mobile device

dhs0079 · Answer

Is the LOD of this question still comparable to the current LOD of GMAT CR questions? Thanks!

Posted from my mobile device

Agarwal2003 · Answer

Why option A cannot be the answer?

hotshot68 · Answer

I initially went with D but later changed to A. Because:

This introduces a  confounding variable  — more policing could mean  more arrests , even  without more actual DUI behavior . 
 BUT: It does  not explain  the increase in  accidents  — which are  not influenced by law enforcement  (you can’t cause an accident just by being caught more often).

The option should account for both arrests and accident.

But for A - Many college students do not purchase alcohol at bars or liquor stores.

If many students get alcohol from  other sources  (e.g., house parties, friends, on-campus events), then the  distance to bars/liquor stores  becomes  irrelevant  to their drinking and driving behavior.
 This would  undermine the central variable  the study is tracking (distance).
 The real cause of DUIs might be  unrelated to bar/store proximity .
 The proximity theory falls apart.

Even though I know the answer is D , can anyone help in invalidating my reasoning?

hotshot68 · Answer

I can probably help with saying Why E is incorrect E says - The number of bars and liquor stores per square mile is nearly five times as high in urban areas as it is in rural and suburban areas. It says about the density of bars and liquor store on an average but not the absolute values. Lets say a college resides in the suburbs and is in-front of a liquor store (100m) , then the average density of stores doesnt matter here. Similarly if a college in urban area might be in the outskirts, and far from the nearest liquor store (5km) even though the density of stores on an average is higher. Here the students have to travel more in the urban center than the rural/suburban area to get liquor. So average density can become irrelevant if the absolute distances are opposite in a case. I prefer A more , and have posted the reasons for which I considered it over D. So I am not the right person to say why D is correct

Driving under the influence is a more severe problem among

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Driving under the influence is a more severe problem among

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards