jet1445 wrote:
Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit points who additionally have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver reeducation, since to do otherwise would be to allow a crime to go unpunished. Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers should driver re-education be recommended for them. Unfortunately, it is always almost impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers.
If the editorialist’s statements are true, they provide the most support for which one of the following?
A. Drivers with a large number of demerit points who have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should be sent to jail.
B. Driver re-education offers the best chance of making drivers with a large number of demerit points responsible drivers.
C. Driver re-education is not a harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of a serious driving-related offense who has also accumulated a large number of demerit points.
D. Driver re-education should not be recommended for those who have committed no serious driving-related offenses.
E. Drivers with a large number of demerit points but no conviction for a serious driving-related offense should receive driver re-education rather than jail.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The correct answer choice is (A) This is a fact set. The stimulus begins with the author indicating that drivers with a large number of demerit points who have also been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver re-education. This either/or relationship sets up the following diagram: J = sent to jail, DE = receive driver re-education, sub-D = drivers with a large number of demerit points who have also been convicted of a serious driving-related offense, ~JD—>DED So ~DED—>JD. The next sentence begins with the conditional indicator “only if,” and introduces the following conditional relationship: R = likely to be made more responsible drivers: DE—>RD. The final sentence denies that drivers with a large number of demerit points who have also been convicted of a serious driving-related offense can be made into more responsible drivers. This can be represented as follows: ~RD. At this point the stimulus ends, but you should continue your analysis by linking the pieces of the stimulus together. The denial of the “R” condition in the final sentence enacts a contrapositive: ~RD —>~DE. Linking this contrapositive to the either/or diagram in the first sentence yields the following chain: ~RD —>~DE—>JD. Hence, the pieces of the argument allow us to conclude that drivers with a large number of demerit points who have also been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should go to jail.
This is restated almost exactly in answer choice (A). Answer choice (B): Like all four of the incorrect answers, this answer contains new information, which in a Must Be True question is cause for suspicion. The stimulus does not discuss the “best chance” for making drivers more responsible.
Answer choice (C): Similar to the reasoning behind eliminating answer choice (B), the stimulus does not discuss whether driver re-education is a “harsh enough punishment” and thus we can eliminate this answer choice.
Answer choice (D): The stimulus does not address drivers who have not committed a serious driving offense, only those convicted of such an offense. Further, this answer does not indicate that the drivers under discussion have a large number of demerit points, and thus we cannot be certain the recommendations made in the stimulus apply to the drivers mentioned in this answer choice.
Answer choice (E): This is an Opposite Answer. According to the last two sentences of the stimulus, drivers with a large number of demerit points should not receive driver re-education.