LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 14

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 14

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:30

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT101 S2 Q14
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
65%
169
B
5%
160
C
5%
164
D
15%
166
E
10%
164
145
159
173
 +Harder 150.088 +SubsectionMedium

Steven: The allowable blood alcohol level for drivers should be cut in half. With this reduced limit, 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, because it would not address the most important aspect of the drunken driving problem, which is the danger to the public posed by heavy drinkers, who often drive with a blood alcohol level of twice the current legal limit.

Speaker 1 Summary
The allowable blood alcohol level for drivers should be cut in half. Why? Because this will deter social drinkers from drinking and driving, which would result in increased highway safety.

Speaker 2 Summary
We should not cut the allowable blood alcohol level for drivers in half. Why? Because heavy drinkers, who often drive at twice the legal limit, are the greatest danger posed to the public. Cutting the limit in half would not address them and therefore would not increase highway safety.

Objective
We need a statement that Steven and Miguel disagree on. They disagree whether the allowable blood alcohol limit for drivers should be cut in half. Steven thinks it should because it would deter social drinkers from drinking and driving. Miguel thinks it shouldn’t because the strategy wouldn’t address the danger of heavy drinkers.

A
Social drinkers who drink and drive pose a substantial threat to the public.
The speakers disagree on this statement. Steven agrees that social drinkers pose a substantial threat, and this is reason for advocating the legal limit to be cut in half. Miguel disagrees and thinks heavy drinkers are the most important aspect of the drunken driving problem.
B
There is a direct correlation between a driver’s blood alcohol level and the driver’s ability to drive safely.
The speakers agree on this statement. Both speakers agree that a driver’s blood alcohol level affects their ability to drive safety. The speaker’s dispute is regarding what level poses the greatest risk to the public.
C
A driver with a blood alcohol level above the current legal limit poses a substantial danger to the public.
The speakers agree on this statement. Steven is disputing that this limit is too high and should be cut in half. Miguel states that heavy drinkers who drink well beyond the limit are the most significant threat to the public.
D
Some drivers whose blood alcohol level is lower than the current legal limit pose a danger to the public.
Miguel does not express and opinion on this statement. Miguel only states that the current level should not be cut in half because heavy drinkers pose the greatest public threat.
E
A driver with a blood alcohol level slightly greater than half the current legal limit poses no danger to the public.
Neither speaker expresses an opinion on this statement. We don’t know whether either speaker believes that there are any drivers that pose no danger to the public.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply