Bunuel
Rachel: The legal drinking age in America should remain at 21, because teens have not yet reached an age where they are able to consume alcohol responsibly. Additionally, the actions of 18-year-olds are more likely to be imitated by teens aged 15 to 17 than are the actions of those who are significantly older, so lowering the drinking age to 18 would also result in increased alcohol consumption by younger teens trying to emulate the actions of their older peers.
Mackenzie: The drinking age in America should be lowered to 18, because keeping it at 21 has not only failed to curb teen drinking but has encouraged those teens who do drink to do so in private, uncontrolled environments where they are more prone to life-endangering behavior. Many youths in European countries drink from an early age, and those countries have substantially fewer alcohol-related problems than we do in America.
Rachel’s argument is based on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Those who have reached the age of 21 are able to consume alcohol more responsibly than those who are 18.
(B) When European teenagers consume alcohol, they do so in public, controlled environments.
(C) Teens who are 15 to 17 years old are more impressionable than those who are aged 18 or older.
(D) The impressionability of one’s actions on others should not be a consideration when deciding the legal age to consume alcohol.
(E) Consuming alcohol in private, uncontrolled environments is not more dangerous than consuming alcohol in more public environments, such as bars or restaurants.
SIMILAR "WEAKEN "QUESTION IS HERE.OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
A. Rachel argues for retaining the current legal drinking age of 21. She bases her conclusion on the premises that younger drinkers are more likely to influence the behavior of 15- to 17-year-olds and that teens haven’t reached an age where they can drink alcohol responsibly.
To find the correct answer to questions that ask for an assumption, look for the answer choice that links one or more of the premises to the conclusion. Eliminate answer choices that don’t relate to at least one of the premises of the argument.
Choices (B) and (E) relate to one of Mackenzie’s premises, so it’s unlikely that they would reveal one of Rachel’s assumptions. Cross out those two answers on your noteboard.
You can also check off Choice (D) because it contradicts Rachel’s premise that the effect an 18-year-old’s alcohol consumption can have on younger peers is an important consideration in determining the legal drinking age. It’s also unlikely that Choice (C) is correct because Rachel doesn’t make comparisons regarding the impressionability of teens based on their ages. Her premise is that younger teens are more likely to be influenced by 18-year-olds than 21-year-olds. Furthermore, Choice (C) doesn’t link one of Rachel’s premises to her conclusion in the way that Choice (A) does.
If Rachel concludes that the legal drinking age must remain at 21 because younger drinkers don’t consume alcohol responsibly, she must think that 21-year-olds have achieved some level of responsibility that’s greater than those who are younger. Choice (A) links the relevance of one of Rachel’s premises (a lower level of responsible drinking) to her conclusion that people who are younger than 21 shouldn’t be able to legally consume alcohol. So the correct answer is Choice (A).