Q14 - Steven: The allowable blood alcohol

[willaminic]

Hi again,

I chose B , and i think it is wrong because the word " direct" is too strong, but for answer A, it is about public safety, and Steven did not mention about public besides highway safety, so we do not know if he agree or not...

Thanks again!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think the issue you're having is really typical for someone who's gone to the effort to be meticulous. It's good that you are, but it's a skill you want to employ later in the section.

You always want to be careful about certain key words:

only, only if, if, the only, any, unless, etc..
causes, due to, induces, etc...
since, because, thus, hence, etc...

But terms are another story

public safety
highway safety

With terms, be flexible early in the section, and wait to tighten up on how exactly the terms match till later in the section. #14 is getting there, but the really tough stuff, begins #17, maybe #16.

And so on this one I think it's okay to say that what is relevant to highway safety is relevant to public safety.

Let's walk through it though anyway.

Steven: social drinkers will be deterred from drinking and driving, resulting in significantly increased highway safety

Miguel: No, lowering the current allowable blood alcohol level would have little effect on highway safety

So they would disagree about whether social drinkers pose a threat to highway safety - best expressed in answer choice (A).

(A) identifies the disagreement between Steven and Miguel.
(B) neither would agree that there is a direct correlation.
(C) Steven would agree but Miguel would not disagree.
(D) they might still both agree. Steven definitely agrees, but we can't be sure that Miguel disagrees. Miguel says that "social drinkers" as a group are not the most substantial threat to public safety, but this answer choice is about "some" individuals.
(E) neither would agree that such a person poses no danger.

[willaminic]

Hi, thank you for your replying, it is very clear..

however, for answer C, it identifies some individuals " whose blood alchol level is lower than the current legan limit" while the stimuls stated danger came from heavy drinkers, whose blood alcohol level was twice of the current lega limit..so for some reason, i think Miguel might disagree...but i think you are right as well as it is about "some individual" so we are not sure.
Thanks again. I just started stuying LSAT today:)

[gilad.bendheim]

Hi - I've got a question about the wording of answer (A). I think the assumption the writers made with the answer choice was to say that "social drinkers, on a night they drank only socially (that is, limitedly), and then drove, pose a threat..." But that is not what the answer states. It says instead that people who drink socially AND drink and drive pose a threat..." The 'social drinkers' then do not refer to any specific night of drinking as much as to the general character of the drivers. Drinking and driving, on the other hand, implies reckless drinking unless otherwise modified. So unless we are supposed to assume that social drinkers NEVER get drunk, then I dont see why either Steven or Miguel would disagree with a statement that essentially says "people who dont usually drink too much, when they drink and drive, pose a substantial threat to the public."

Any help would be great. Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So unless we are supposed to assume that social drinkers NEVER get drunk, then I dont see why either Steven or Miguel would disagree with a statement that essentially says "people who dont usually drink too much, when they drink and drive, pose a substantial threat to the public."

Good question and you've hit on something that I'm aware of, but haven't seen play out in an Identify the Disagreement question. You know those questions that ask you to find the answer choice that is "most strongly supported" by the stimulus, and how sometimes these answer choices cannot be confirmed with information solely within the stimulus, I think this is similar.

The statements provide the most support for holding that Steven and Miguel would disagree about which of the following? Why can't we say that Steven would agree with answer choice (A)? He thinks that getting the social drinkers off the road will make a big difference in highway safety (ie; social drinkers pose a substantial threat). And Miguel seems to disagree with this. He says that cutting the legal limit in half - getting the social drinkers off the road - will have little impact on highway safety (ie; social drinkers do not pose a substantial threat).

Let me know if I'm reading anything here differently than you!

[gilad.bendheim]

Hi Matt -
Thanks for your response. My question revolves around whether we can assume that social drinkers never get drunk. Miguel surely disagrees with Steven's notion that someone with a .041 BAC is as dangerous as someone with .081 BAC. But I see no reason from the way the answer choice is worded to necessarily assume that these drivers - though they are characterized as 'social drinkers' - are not drunk when 'drink and drive'. And if they are drunk, then this answer choice would be one of the Out of Scope choices, because it would be talking about a case of people over the limit, whereas the disagreement has to be about someone who falls in between Steven's proposed lower limit and the actual current BAC limit. As I said, the real question I have is the extent to which it is fair to make assumptions based on a stimulas like this one.

thanks again.

[carly.applebaum]

i understand why B, C, D, and E are incorrect, but I don't understand the wording of A. how are social drinkers brought in to the answer since miguel doesn't talk about them? and i thought there might be a little bit of a term shift, from "highway safety" to "threat to public".

if anyone could explain A that would be much appreciated!!

thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

i understand why B, C, D, and E are incorrect, but I don't understand the wording of A. how are social drinkers brought in to the answer since miguel doesn't talk about them? and i thought there might be a little bit of a term shift, from "highway safety" to "threat to public".

Good questions. To the first one, Miguel does talk about social drinkers when he says "No, lowering the current allowable ..." Miguel is claiming that the social drinkers Steven says would be deterred from drinking and driving don't represent a danger to the public - which addresses your second point! Miguel is discussing those drivers who represent a danger to to the public, which is essentially the same as a "threat to the public."

Hope that helps!

[alexg89]

I think the key word to this question is "substantial" - you could reasonably argue that they both may agree that social drivers pose a threat and maybe they even do get drunk and drive sometimes; however, do they do this as often as heavy drinkers?

Miguel says the biggest/most substantial threat is heavy drinkers and it can be inferred that Steven thinks it is social drivers who are the ones who are the substantial threat because if they are deferred from driving it would allegedly cause the highways to become significantly safer.

Hi Matt -
Thanks for your response. My question revolves around whether we can assume that social drinkers never get drunk. Miguel surely disagrees with Steven's notion that someone with a .041 BAC is as dangerous as someone with .081 BAC. But I see no reason from the way the answer choice is worded to necessarily assume that these drivers - though they are characterized as 'social drinkers' - are not drunk when 'drink and drive'. And if they are drunk, then this answer choice would be one of the Out of Scope choices, because it would be talking about a case of people over the limit, whereas the disagreement has to be about someone who falls in between Steven's proposed lower limit and the actual current BAC limit. As I said, the real question I have is the extent to which it is fair to make assumptions based on a stimulas like this one.

thanks again.

[dean.won]

Hi

When miguel says "little effect on highway safety" isnt he implying that there is at least SOME effect (ie. that there would not be NO effect)?

Is A correct because "substantial" is too strong thus a disagreement from miguel??

[griffin.811]

Hi

When miguel says "little effect on highway safety" isnt he implying that there is at least SOME effect (ie. that there would not be NO effect)?

Is A correct because "substantial" is too strong thus a disagreement from miguel??

Pretty much!

S is implying that if we stop social drinkers from drinking and driving there will be SUBSTANTIAL safety improvements.

Then M says: Stopping social drinkers will not have a SUBSTANTIAL impact on safety improvement, because they are not the main problem. These other guys are the main issue.

So, like you pointed out, they disagree over whether or not Stopping social drinkers will have a SUBSTANTIAL impact.

[justindebouvier7]

I also had the same question. I held A as a contender from the beginning and eliminated everything but B even though I wasn't confident that it was the right answer. However, I noticed that the social drinking portion referred to those social drinking under the limit. But I still have no idea why a social drinker couldn't get hammered one night, drive, and not pose a serious threat?

[ohthatpatrick]

Keep in mind that the ideas being tossed back and forth here are very general ones.

We're talking about "heavy drinkers" generally - does that mean that they ALWAYS drink heavily, every day of their lives? Are they allowed to SOMETIMES drink lightly or not at all?

We're talking about "social drinkers" generally - does that mean that they ALWAYS drink moderately? Could they sometimes drink heavily or not at all?

We're talking about "significant increase in highway safety" - does that mean that ALL instances of social drinking & driving will be prevented?

We're talking about "little effect on highway safety" - does that mean that NOTHING would be accomplished/improved?

My point here is that all these broad statements allow plenty of room for occasional exceptions or slight variation.

So if a social drinker occasionally gets hammered, then on that night he/she would qualify as a heavy drinker.

Or, we can just define the demographic of 'social drinkers' as 'people who usually drink moderately but may from time to time drink heavily'.

It doesn't make a difference to this conversation. 'Social drinker' doesn't have to define a permanent characteristic of someone.

For the purposes of this conversation, we could just walk into any bar and label people as 'social' or 'heavy' drinkers, based on how much alcohol they currently had in their system.

The disagreement stems from whether the 'heavy' drinkers are the only group who have a significant impact on highway safety or whether the 'social' drinkers also pose a substantial threat.

Hope this helps.

[HughM388]

Keep in mind that the ideas being tossed back and forth here are very general ones.

We're talking about "heavy drinkers" generally - does that mean that they ALWAYS drink heavily, every day of their lives? Are they allowed to SOMETIMES drink lightly or not at all?

We're talking about "social drinkers" generally - does that mean that they ALWAYS drink moderately? Could they sometimes drink heavily or not at all?

We're talking about "significant increase in highway safety" - does that mean that ALL instances of social drinking & driving will be prevented?

We're talking about "little effect on highway safety" - does that mean that NOTHING would be accomplished/improved?

My point here is that all these broad statements allow plenty of room for occasional exceptions or slight variation.

So if a social drinker occasionally gets hammered, then on that night he/she would qualify as a heavy drinker.

Or, we can just define the demographic of 'social drinkers' as 'people who usually drink moderately but may from time to time drink heavily'.

It doesn't make a difference to this conversation. 'Social drinker' doesn't have to define a permanent characteristic of someone.

For the purposes of this conversation, we could just walk into any bar and label people as 'social' or 'heavy' drinkers, based on how much alcohol they currently had in their system.

The disagreement stems from whether the 'heavy' drinkers are the only group who have a significant impact on highway safety or whether the 'social' drinkers also pose a substantial threat.

Hope this helps.

Patrick,

This sort of but doesn't really gets at the problem I had in evaluating this question and its answer choices. Were we supposed to differentiate between social drinkers and heavy drinkers as types?

I read Steven's argument as recommending a lowering of the legal limit because such lower levels would necessarily lengthen the arm of the law and ensnare more drunk drivers, overall, thus creating a stronger deterrent against all would-be drunk drivers. I considered "social drinker" not as a type but an example of an activity—of relevance, for both Steven's and Miguel's positions, because people drinking socially are out and about and more likely to be driving.

I automatically included a not insignificant number of the more bibulous social drinkers among Miguel's heavy drinkers. So I interpreted Miguel's statements to mean only that lowering the limit by half would make little difference because heavy drinkers, who are the real problem, are going to blow right through any limit anyway, since they're typically doubling the current limit as it is.

That's why (A) didn't denote any disagreement to me. If there are social drinkers who are also heavy drinkers, as I interpreted Miguel to believe, then how could he and Steven disagree about those heavy drinkers posing a danger? I saw more disagreement between them in (E), as Miguel doesn't think the limit needs to be lowered and clearly believes that removing half-lit drivers from the roads would have little to no effect.