This is a dubious critical reasoning question whose supposed best answer is (D).

The first problem with this question is that there is no conclusion in the stimulus. Rather, what we find is a list of facts. The question stem asks us to evaluate "the result." However, it is unclear what this result is.

If we analyze it more deeply, we might notice that the question the researchers were hoping to resolve is whether the distance from the dorm to a liquor store was a contributing factor to the severity of the driving under the influence ("DUI") problem there. However, the data gathered by the social scientists indicate only that arrests and accidents are higher without indicating whether those arrests or accidents were alcohol related. Assume that the social scientists concluded that the distance did contribute to the DUI problem, our goal would presumably be to determine whether the accidents and arrests were alcohol related in order to determine the validity of the assumed conclusion.

However, the supposed best answer says that local sheriff's departments near rural and suburban universities devote more resources to identifying and arresting those driving under the influence than do urban police forces. This certainly might explain a greater number of arrests, but it would do nothing to explain the greater number of accidents nor would it indicate whether a disproportionate number of the accidents in rural areas were alcohol related.

In conclusion, wherever possible, only use real GMAT critical reasoning questions from past tests.