Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
There is extraordinary exposure in the United States to the risks of injury and death from motor vehicle accidents. More than 80 percent of all households own passenger cars or light trucks and each of these is driven an average of more than 11,000 miles each year. Almost one half of fatally injured drivers have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.1 percent or higher. For the average adult, over five ounces of 80-proof spirits would have to be consumed over a short period of time to attain these levels. A third of drivers who have been drinking, but fewer than 4 percent of all drivers, demonstrate these levels. Although less than 1 percent of drivers with BACs of 0.1 percent or more are involved in fatal crashes, the probability of their involvement is 27 times higher than for those without alcohol in their blood.
There are a number of different approaches to reducing injuries in which intoxication plays a role. Based on the observation that excessive consumption correlates with the total alcohol consumption of a country's population, it has been suggested that higher taxes on alcohol would reduce both. While the heaviest drinkers would be taxed the most, anyone who drinks at all would be penalized by this approach.
To make drinking and driving a criminal offense is an approach directed only at intoxicated drivers. In some states, the law empowers police to request breath tests of drivers cited for any traffic offense and elevated BAC can be the basis for arrest The National Highway estimates, however, that even with increased arrests, there are about 700 violations for every arrest. At this level there is little evidence that laws serve as deterrents to driving while intoxicated. In Britain, motor vehicle fatalities fell 25 percent immediately following implementation of the Road Safety Act in 1967. As the British increasingly recognized that they could drink and not be stopped, the effectiveness declined, although in the ensuing three years the fatality rate seldom reached that observed in the seven years prior to the Act.
Whether penalties for driving with a high BAC or excessive taxation on consumption of alcoholic beverages will deter the excessive drinker responsible for most fatalities is unclear. In part, the answer depends on the extent to which those with high BACs involved in crashes are capable of controlling their intake in response to economic or penal threat. Therapeutic programs that range from individual and group counseling and psychotherapy to chemotherapy constitute another approach, but they have not diminished the proportion of accidents in which alcohol was a factor. In the few controlled trials that have been reported, there is little evidence that rehabilitation programs for those repeatedly arrested for drunken behavior have reduced either the recidivism or crash rates. Thus far, there is no firm evidence that Alcohol Safety Action Project supported programs, in which rehabilitation measures are requested by the court, have decreased recidivism or crash involvement for clients exposed to them, although knowledge and attitudes have improved. One thing is clear, however; unless we deal with automobile and highway safety and reduce accidents in which alcoholic intoxication plays a role, many will continue to die.
There are a number of different approaches to reducing injuries in which intoxication plays a role. Based on the observation that excessive consumption correlates with the total alcohol consumption of a country's population, it has been suggested that higher taxes on alcohol would reduce both. While the heaviest drinkers would be taxed the most, anyone who drinks at all would be penalized by this approach.
To make drinking and driving a criminal offense is an approach directed only at intoxicated drivers. In some states, the law empowers police to request breath tests of drivers cited for any traffic offense and elevated BAC can be the basis for arrest The National Highway estimates, however, that even with increased arrests, there are about 700 violations for every arrest. At this level there is little evidence that laws serve as deterrents to driving while intoxicated. In Britain, motor vehicle fatalities fell 25 percent immediately following implementation of the Road Safety Act in 1967. As the British increasingly recognized that they could drink and not be stopped, the effectiveness declined, although in the ensuing three years the fatality rate seldom reached that observed in the seven years prior to the Act.
Whether penalties for driving with a high BAC or excessive taxation on consumption of alcoholic beverages will deter the excessive drinker responsible for most fatalities is unclear. In part, the answer depends on the extent to which those with high BACs involved in crashes are capable of controlling their intake in response to economic or penal threat. Therapeutic programs that range from individual and group counseling and psychotherapy to chemotherapy constitute another approach, but they have not diminished the proportion of accidents in which alcohol was a factor. In the few controlled trials that have been reported, there is little evidence that rehabilitation programs for those repeatedly arrested for drunken behavior have reduced either the recidivism or crash rates. Thus far, there is no firm evidence that Alcohol Safety Action Project supported programs, in which rehabilitation measures are requested by the court, have decreased recidivism or crash involvement for clients exposed to them, although knowledge and attitudes have improved. One thing is clear, however; unless we deal with automobile and highway safety and reduce accidents in which alcoholic intoxication plays a role, many will continue to die.
The correct answer is (B).
This is a main idea question. The author first states that a large number of auto traffic fatalities can be attributed to drivers who are intoxicated and then reviews two approaches to controlling this problem, taxation and drunk driving laws. Neither is very successful. The author finally notes that therapy may be useful, though the extent of its value has not yet been proved. (B) describes this development fairly well.
(A) can be eliminated since any conclusions drawn by the author from studies on drunk driving are used for the larger objective described in (B).
(C) is incorrect since, aside from suggesting possible ways to reduce the extent of the problem, the author never treats the causes of drunk driving.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason.
Finally, (E) is incorrect, because the comparison between the U.S. and Britain is only a small part of the passage.
This is a main idea question. The author first states that a large number of auto traffic fatalities can be attributed to drivers who are intoxicated and then reviews two approaches to controlling this problem, taxation and drunk driving laws. Neither is very successful. The author finally notes that therapy may be useful, though the extent of its value has not yet been proved. (B) describes this development fairly well.
(A) can be eliminated since any conclusions drawn by the author from studies on drunk driving are used for the larger objective described in (B).
(C) is incorrect since, aside from suggesting possible ways to reduce the extent of the problem, the author never treats the causes of drunk driving.
(D) is incorrect for the same reason.
Finally, (E) is incorrect, because the comparison between the U.S. and Britain is only a small part of the passage.
A. interpreting the results of surveys on traffic fatalities.
B. reviewing the effectiveness of attempts to curb drunk driving.
C. suggesting reasons for the prevalence of drunk driving in the United States.
D. analyzing the causes of the large number of annual traffic fatalities.
E. making an international comparison of the U.S. and Britain.
The correct answer is (B).
This is an inference question. In the third paragraph, the author discusses the effect of drunk driving laws and states that after the implementation of the Road Safety
Act in Britain, motor vehicle fatalities fell considerably. On this basis, we infer that the RSA was a law aimed at drunk driving. We can eliminate (D) and (E) on this ground.
(C) can be eliminated as not warranted on the basis of this information. It is not clear whether the number of arrests increased. Equally consistent with the passage is the conclusion that the number of arrests dropped because people were no longer driving while intoxicated. (C) is incorrect for a further reason, the justification for (B).
(B) and (A) are fairly close since both describe the RSA as a law aimed at drunk driving. But
the last sentence of the third paragraph calls for (B) over (A). As people learned that they would not get caught for drunk driving, the law became less effective. This suggests that the RSA made drunk driving illegal, not that it lowered the BAC required for conviction. This makes sense of the sentence
This is an inference question. In the third paragraph, the author discusses the effect of drunk driving laws and states that after the implementation of the Road Safety
Act in Britain, motor vehicle fatalities fell considerably. On this basis, we infer that the RSA was a law aimed at drunk driving. We can eliminate (D) and (E) on this ground.
(C) can be eliminated as not warranted on the basis of this information. It is not clear whether the number of arrests increased. Equally consistent with the passage is the conclusion that the number of arrests dropped because people were no longer driving while intoxicated. (C) is incorrect for a further reason, the justification for (B).
(B) and (A) are fairly close since both describe the RSA as a law aimed at drunk driving. But
the last sentence of the third paragraph calls for (B) over (A). As people learned that they would not get caught for drunk driving, the law became less effective. This suggests that the RSA made drunk driving illegal, not that it lowered the BAC required for conviction. This makes sense of the sentence
A. changed an existing law to lower the BAC level which defined driving while intoxicated.
B. made it illegal to drive while intoxicated.
C. increased the number of drunk driving arrests.
D. placed a tax on the sale of alcoholic drinks.
E. required drivers convicted under the law to undergo rehabilitation therapy.
The correct answer is (A).
This is an inference question. In the first paragraph, the author states that for a person to attain a BAC of 0.1 percent, he or she would need to drink over five ounces of 80-proof spirits over a short period of time. The author is trying to impress on us that that is a considerable quantity of alcohol for most people to drink. (A) explains why the author makes this comment.
(B) is incorrect and confuses the first paragraph with the second paragraph.
(C) is incorrect since the point of the example is that the BAC is so high most people will not exceed it. This is not to say, however, that people will not drink and drive because of laws establishing maximum BAC levels. Rather, they can continue to drink and drive because the law allows them a considerable margin in the level of BAC.
(D) is a misreading of that first paragraph. Of all the very drunk drivers (BAC in excess of 0.1), only 1 percent are involved in accidents. But this does not say that most drivers involved in fatal collisions have BAC levels in excess of 0.1 percent, and that is what (D) says.
As for (E), the author never states that the only way to attain a BAC of 0.1 percent is to drink five ounces of 80-proof spirits in a short time; there may be other ways of becoming intoxicated.
This is an inference question. In the first paragraph, the author states that for a person to attain a BAC of 0.1 percent, he or she would need to drink over five ounces of 80-proof spirits over a short period of time. The author is trying to impress on us that that is a considerable quantity of alcohol for most people to drink. (A) explains why the author makes this comment.
(B) is incorrect and confuses the first paragraph with the second paragraph.
(C) is incorrect since the point of the example is that the BAC is so high most people will not exceed it. This is not to say, however, that people will not drink and drive because of laws establishing maximum BAC levels. Rather, they can continue to drink and drive because the law allows them a considerable margin in the level of BAC.
(D) is a misreading of that first paragraph. Of all the very drunk drivers (BAC in excess of 0.1), only 1 percent are involved in accidents. But this does not say that most drivers involved in fatal collisions have BAC levels in excess of 0.1 percent, and that is what (D) says.
As for (E), the author never states that the only way to attain a BAC of 0.1 percent is to drink five ounces of 80-proof spirits in a short time; there may be other ways of becoming intoxicated.
A. is unreasonably high as a definition of intoxication for purposes of driving.
B. penalizes the moderate drinker while allowing the heavy drinker to consume without limit.
C. will operate as an effective deterrent to over 90 percent of the people who might drink and drive.
D. is well below the BAC of most drivers who are involved in fatal collisions.
E. proves that a driver has consumed five ounces of 80-proof spirits over a short time.
The correct answer is (A).
This is an application question. In the second paragraph, the author states that increased taxation on alcohol would tax the heaviest drinkers most, but notes that this would also penalize the moderate and light drinker. In other words, the remedy is not sufficiently focused on the problem. Then, in the third paragraph, the author notes that drunk driving laws are aimed at the specific problem drivers. We can infer from this discussion that the author would likely advocate drunk driving laws over taxation for the reasons just given. This reasoning is presented in answer (A).
(B) is incorrect for the reasons just given and for the further reason that the passage never suggests that taxation is likely to be more effective in solving the problem. The author never really evaluates the effectiveness of taxation in reducing drunk driving.
(C) is incorrect for the reason given in support of (A) and for the further reason that the author never raises the issue of personal liberty in conjunction with the BAC test.
(D) can be eliminated because the author does not discount the effectiveness of antidrunk driving measures entirely. Even the British example gives some support to the conclusion that such laws have an effect.
(E) is incorrect, for the author never mentions the expense or administrative feasibility of BAC tests.
This is an application question. In the second paragraph, the author states that increased taxation on alcohol would tax the heaviest drinkers most, but notes that this would also penalize the moderate and light drinker. In other words, the remedy is not sufficiently focused on the problem. Then, in the third paragraph, the author notes that drunk driving laws are aimed at the specific problem drivers. We can infer from this discussion that the author would likely advocate drunk driving laws over taxation for the reasons just given. This reasoning is presented in answer (A).
(B) is incorrect for the reasons just given and for the further reason that the passage never suggests that taxation is likely to be more effective in solving the problem. The author never really evaluates the effectiveness of taxation in reducing drunk driving.
(C) is incorrect for the reason given in support of (A) and for the further reason that the author never raises the issue of personal liberty in conjunction with the BAC test.
(D) can be eliminated because the author does not discount the effectiveness of antidrunk driving measures entirely. Even the British example gives some support to the conclusion that such laws have an effect.
(E) is incorrect, for the author never mentions the expense or administrative feasibility of BAC tests.
A. Making driving while intoxicated a criminal offense is preferable to increased taxes on alcohol because the former is aimed only at those who abuse alcohol by driving while intoxicated.
B. Increased taxation on alcohol consumption is likely to be more effective in reducing traffic fatalities because taxation covers all consumers and not just those who drive.
C. Increased taxation on alcohol will constitute less of an interference with personal liberty because of the necessity of blood alcohol tests to determine BACs in drivers suspected of intoxication.
D. Since neither increased taxation nor enforcement of criminal laws against drunk drivers is likely to have any significant impact, neither measure is warranted.
E. Because arrests of intoxicated drivers have proved to be expensive and administratively cumbersome, increased taxation on alcohol is the most promising means of reducing traffic fatalities.
The correct answer is (C).
This is a question about the logical structure of the passage. In paragraph 3, the author notes that stricter enforcement of laws against drunk driving may result in a few more arrests; but a few more arrests are not likely to have much impact on the problem because the number of arrests is small compared to those who do not get caught. As a consequence, people will continue to drink and drive. The author supports this with the British experience. Once people realize that the chances of being caught are relatively small, they will drink and drive. This is the conclusion of answer (C).
(A) is incorrect since the passage does not support the conclusion that the problem is any worse or any better in one country or the other.
(B) is incorrect since this is the conclusion the author is arguing against.
(D) is wrong because the author is not discussing the effectiveness of taxation in paragraph 3.
(E) is a statement the author would likely accept, but that is not the reason for introducing the British example. So answer (E) is true but nonresponsive.
This is a question about the logical structure of the passage. In paragraph 3, the author notes that stricter enforcement of laws against drunk driving may result in a few more arrests; but a few more arrests are not likely to have much impact on the problem because the number of arrests is small compared to those who do not get caught. As a consequence, people will continue to drink and drive. The author supports this with the British experience. Once people realize that the chances of being caught are relatively small, they will drink and drive. This is the conclusion of answer (C).
(A) is incorrect since the passage does not support the conclusion that the problem is any worse or any better in one country or the other.
(B) is incorrect since this is the conclusion the author is arguing against.
(D) is wrong because the author is not discussing the effectiveness of taxation in paragraph 3.
(E) is a statement the author would likely accept, but that is not the reason for introducing the British example. So answer (E) is true but nonresponsive.
A. show that the problem of drunk driving is worse in Britain than in the U.S.
B. prove that stricter enforcement of laws against intoxicated drivers would reduce traffic deaths.
C. prove that a slight increase in the number of arrests of intoxicated drivers will not deter drunk driving.
D. suggest that taxation of alcohol consumption may be more effective than criminal laws.
E. demonstrate the need to lower BAC levels in states that have laws against drunk driving.
The correct answer is (A).
This is an application question that asks us to examine the logical structure of the argument. In the fourth paragraph, the author argues that the effectiveness of deterrents to drunk driving will depend upon the ability of the drinker to control consumption. But drunk driving has two aspects: being drunk and driving. The author assumes that drunk driving is a function of drinking only. Otherwise, the author would not suggest that control on consumption is necessary as opposed to helpful. (A) attacks this assumption by pointing out that it is possible to drink to excess without driving. It is possible that stiff penalties could be effective deterrents to drunk driving if not to drinking to excess.
(B) is incorrect because the author makes this point, so this choice does not weaken the argument.
(C) is incorrect since the author is concerned only with the problem of fatalities caused by drunk driving. (D) can be eliminated since the author is concerned with eliminating fatalities caused by drunk driving, not with whether the drunk driver ought to be punished.
(E) is not a strong attack on the argument since the author does leave open the question of the value of therapy in combating drunk driving.
This is an application question that asks us to examine the logical structure of the argument. In the fourth paragraph, the author argues that the effectiveness of deterrents to drunk driving will depend upon the ability of the drinker to control consumption. But drunk driving has two aspects: being drunk and driving. The author assumes that drunk driving is a function of drinking only. Otherwise, the author would not suggest that control on consumption is necessary as opposed to helpful. (A) attacks this assumption by pointing out that it is possible to drink to excess without driving. It is possible that stiff penalties could be effective deterrents to drunk driving if not to drinking to excess.
(B) is incorrect because the author makes this point, so this choice does not weaken the argument.
(C) is incorrect since the author is concerned only with the problem of fatalities caused by drunk driving. (D) can be eliminated since the author is concerned with eliminating fatalities caused by drunk driving, not with whether the drunk driver ought to be punished.
(E) is not a strong attack on the argument since the author does leave open the question of the value of therapy in combating drunk driving.
A. Even if the heavy drinker cannot control intake, criminal laws against driving while intoxicated can deter him or her from driving while intoxicated.
B. Rehabilitation programs aimed at drivers convicted of driving while intoxicated have not significantly reduced traffic fatalities.
C. Many traffic fatalities are caused by factors unrelated to the excessive consumption of alcohol by the driver involved.
D. Even though severe penalties may not deter the intoxicated driver, these laws will punish him or her for the harm caused by driving while intoxicated.
E. Some sort of therapy may be effective in helping the problem drinker to control the intake of alcohol, thereby keeping him or her off the road.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
bM22
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2016
Last visit: 17 Jul 2025
Posts: 523
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,316
Location: India
Schools: IIM (A) IIM (A) IIM-A '24 (A) ISB '24 (A)
Products:
06 Mar 2021, 09:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
aliu0130
Hi aliu0130,
This is a duplicate passage, please refer the passage here:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/there-is-extraordinary-exposure-in-the-united-states-to-the-risks-of-264434.html.
Thanks.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
