In Berinia, the age at which people could begin to drink alcohol legally used to be 18. In 1990, in an attempt to reduce alcohol consumption and thereby reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths among Berinians under 21, the legal drinking age was raised to 21. Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people under 21 have decreased significantly since 1990. Nevertheless, surveys show that people in that age-group drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.
Which of the following, if true of Berinia, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
(A) For the population as a whole, annual alcohol consumption is no lower now than it was in 1990.
(B) Alcohol consumption away from home, for example in bars and restaurants, is much lower among people under 21 than it was in 1990.
(C) The proportion of people under 21 who own a car is higher now than it was in 1990.
(D) Alcohol consumption is lower among people under 21 than among adults in most other age-groups.
(E) Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people over 21 have increased slightly since 1990.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Berinia traffic deaths
This topic has expert replies
-
BlueDragon2010
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:19 am
- Followed by:1 members
-
Patrick_GMATFix
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1052
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
- Thanked: 335 times
- Followed by:98 members
The right answer will explain how even though young people drink just as much as before, alcohol-related traffic deaths among young people decreased significantly. The answer will probably explain that though young people still get drunk, they are no longer drunk on the road. The full solution below is taken from the GMATFix App.
-Patrick
-Patrick
- Check out my site: GMATFix.com
- To prep my students I use this tool >> (screenshots, video)
- Ask me about tutoring.
-
Abhishek009
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:37 am
- Location: Kolkata, India
- Thanked: 50 times
- Followed by:2 members
Age for drinking alcohol increased from 18 to 21 to reduce alcohol consumption and traffic deaths.BlueDragon2010 wrote:In Berinia, the age at which people could begin to drink alcohol legally used to be 18. In 1990, in an attempt to reduce alcohol consumption and thereby reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths among Berinians under 21, the legal drinking age was raised to 21. Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people under 21 have decreased significantly since 1990. Nevertheless, surveys show that people in that age-group drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.
Since 1990 , after increasing age for drinking - Traffic deaths decreased significantly.
Surveys : People below 21 still consume the same amount of alcohol as they did before putting legal restriction on drinking age.
Which of the following, if true of Berinia, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
(A) For the population as a whole, annual alcohol consumption is no lower now than it was in 1990.
Might be true , we don't have information of the annual consumption of the entire population.
(B) Alcohol consumption away from home, for example in bars and restaurants, is much lower among people under 21 than it was in 1990.
True , traffic deaths have decreased since the population below 21 can't buy a drink in Bars and restaurants as the Government has put restriction on sale to minors.
Hence people below 21 cant drink alcohol away from home and drive cars , therefore accidents are less.
(C) The proportion of people under 21 who own a car is higher now than it was in 1990.
Out of scope.
(D) Alcohol consumption is lower among people under 21 than among adults in most other age-groups.
Out of scope and not relevant to the discussion.
(E) Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people over 21 have increased slightly since 1990.
Out of scope , we are interested in traffic deaths and effects of underage drinking below 21 years of age.
So IMO (B) holds good..
Abhishek
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
[email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
Hi BlueDragon2010,
This CR prompt is an example of an Explain question. You'll typically see just 1 of these on the GMAT and it's usually a fairly straight-forward prompt. You'll read about two things that occur at the same time. At first, it won't make sense that both things could occur at the same time, but the question will ask you to explain how it's possible. The correct answer will offer an option in which both things could occur (both could still be true).
For this prompt, we are told:
1) In 1990, as a way to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths in Berinians under age 21, the legal drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 (and the number of alcohol related traffic deaths for those under 21 decreased significantly).
2) Surveys show that people in that age group (under 21) drink just as much alcohol as they did before the change.
We need an answer that could account for the decrease in traffic deaths BUT allow for the same amount of alcohol consumption as before.
Answer B tells us that alcohol consumption away from home is lower than it used to be. With THAT decrease, it's possible (and even likely) that the number of traffic deaths would decrease for that age group (since those people aren't drinking far from home, and thus they wouldn't be driving home drunk as often). It also allows for the idea that maybe those people are drinking AT HOME, so the amount of drinking could be the same as before AND the number of traffic accidents could be lower.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
This CR prompt is an example of an Explain question. You'll typically see just 1 of these on the GMAT and it's usually a fairly straight-forward prompt. You'll read about two things that occur at the same time. At first, it won't make sense that both things could occur at the same time, but the question will ask you to explain how it's possible. The correct answer will offer an option in which both things could occur (both could still be true).
For this prompt, we are told:
1) In 1990, as a way to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths in Berinians under age 21, the legal drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 (and the number of alcohol related traffic deaths for those under 21 decreased significantly).
2) Surveys show that people in that age group (under 21) drink just as much alcohol as they did before the change.
We need an answer that could account for the decrease in traffic deaths BUT allow for the same amount of alcohol consumption as before.
Answer B tells us that alcohol consumption away from home is lower than it used to be. With THAT decrease, it's possible (and even likely) that the number of traffic deaths would decrease for that age group (since those people aren't drinking far from home, and thus they wouldn't be driving home drunk as often). It also allows for the idea that maybe those people are drinking AT HOME, so the amount of drinking could be the same as before AND the number of traffic accidents could be lower.
GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
-
mcdesty
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:02 pm
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:11 members
- GMAT Score:760
Read the explanations above first, then see the image below to see how I would tackle the question.
- Attachments
-
I have made your mistakes before.
I am experienced - I have tutored calculus and linear algebra for over two years.
For a very modest fee, I will ensure that your GMAT journey is a smooth one: Daily assignments and careful micro management.
PM me so we can get started.
I am experienced - I have tutored calculus and linear algebra for over two years.
For a very modest fee, I will ensure that your GMAT journey is a smooth one: Daily assignments and careful micro management.
PM me so we can get started.
