Rachel: The legal drinking age in America should remain at 21, because

Question

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 .

solikon · Answer

Answer should be  C  because main issue highlighted by the Rachel is that young people (age 15) imitate older one and Rachel directly assumes that older kids (age 18) do not do so or at least are less likely do do so.

rish2708 · Answer

Answer should be a.

Ans c says that the 15 year olds are more impressionable than 18.

But Rachel's argument is that if we lower the age limit to 18 then it's a problem as the responsibility is decreased.

So the age concern of above 18's impressionism does not really matter.

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device

redskull1 · Answer

I vote for C.

The answer is not A because drinking responsibly is already mentioned in the passage.

Posted from my mobile device

rish2708 · Answer

Exactly the responsibility factor is mentioned but if you notice carefully it is for 18 years

We are inherently assuming that 21 years is a responsible age. And same is assumed by Rachel as well. Apart from that the whole argument by both the debators hinges on the responsibility only as per me.

kumarankit01 · Answer

I'll go for A .

Rachal argument is based on the age when one drink responsibly .
Other statement is additional premise to support why the age should not be decreased.

redskull1 · Answer

I dont know.I am still veering towards C because negating C breaks the argument.Also,in my view,the first statement of rachels argument and option A are pretty similar

Posted from my mobile device

Bunuel · Answer

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).

Leonaann · Answer

I had chosen option E as my answer. I think I understand where I went wrong but please do help check my understanding.

E says alcohol drinking in private environment more dangerous than in public environment . However, the premise does not tell us the degree of level of danger consuming alcohol in private environment compared to in consuming alcohol in public environment. That is the reason why option E is wrong.

avikroy · Answer

i feel too that option A is a restatement of the premise................. Option C is better among the rest

kristieboa · Answer

I go for A because I eliminate other options as below

(A) Those who have reached the age of 21 are able to consume alcohol more responsibly than those who are 18. 
--> This is actually the assumption that the argument is based on. Try to negate it, we will have "Those who have reached the age of 21 are NOT able to consume alcohol more responsibly than those who are 18". This statement will hurt the argument conclusion. So this is CORRECT.

(B) When European teenagers consume alcohol, they do so in public, controlled environments.
--> The first argument does not mention about European teenagers. So this is out of scope

(C) Teens who are 15 to 17 years old are more impressionable than those who are aged 18 or older.
--> We have nothing to do when comparing the impressionability. This is irrelevant.

(D) The impressionability of one’s actions on others should not be a consideration when deciding the legal age to consume alcohol.
--> Again irrelevant with impressionability.

(E) Consuming alcohol in private, uncontrolled environments is not more dangerous than consuming alcohol in more public environments, such as bars or restaurants.
--> Irrelevant to compare the danger of drinking in private place to public place.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Rachel: The legal drinking age in America should remain at 21, because

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

Rachel: The legal drinking age in America should remain at 21, because

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