Summarize Argument
The author argues that drunk drivers are deterred by the prospect of severe penalties. This is because statistics show that countries with the most severe penalties for drunk driving have a smaller percentage of alcohol-related traffic accidents when compared to other countries.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are no other factors, such as cultural differences, in the countries with harsh punishments for drunk driving that would explain the lower rates of drunk driving accidents.
A
The countries with the largest populations do not have severe penalties for driving while intoxicated.
This is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument. The size of countries with/without severe penalties does not impact the causal relationship between severe penalties and the rates of drunk driving accidents.
B
Very severe penalties against driving while intoxicated are in effect only in countries in which alcohol use is rare.
This weakens the argument by calling out one of the author’s main assumptions. If alcohol use is already rare in countries with the strictest penalties, then the low rate of alcohol-related driving accidents might be due to low alcohol consumption.
C
The higher a country’s speed limits, the more frequent traffic accidents tend to be in that country.
A country’s speed limits are irrelevant to the relationship between strict penalties and the rate of drunk driving accidents. You need to make a lot of unwarranted assumptions for this answer choice to work.
D
Only a relatively small minority of those who drive while intoxicated are actually apprehended while doing so.
Whether or not drunk drivers are apprehended is irrelevant to the relationship between strict penalties and the rate of drunk driving accidents. Also, this does not address the comparison between countries with/without strict penalties.
E
All countries impose severer penalties on those who cause accidents while driving intoxicated than on those who are merely apprehended while driving intoxicated.
This is irrelevant to the argument because it does not address how the severity of penalties impacts the rate of drunk driving accidents. This fact does not change anything about the argument.
Summary
A design that turns out well has usually gone through many drafts, with each improving on the last. Sketching an idea usually allows a designer to see an idea’s flaws and advantages. Areas where the sketch feels confused reveals where the design has been inadequately conceptualized.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A design that turns out well has usually involved the designer sketching the design many times to see areas where the sketch has been inadequately conceptualized.
A
The designs that turn out best go through the most drafts.
This is unsupported because we don’t have enough information to state the superlative that the drafts that turn out best go through the most drafts. We only know that good designs in general typically have many drafts.
B
Many good designs have emerged from design ideas that were flawed.
This is strongly supported because if good designs are the products of drafting an idea many times, and drafts are useful because they help a designer see where a sketch is flawed, many of those good ideas had initial flaws that were improved on subsequent drafts.
C
Designs that do not turn out well have not gone through many drafts.
This is unsupported because many drafts is usually necessary for good designs, not sufficient as this answer choice sees it.
D
Designs whose initial conceptualization was inadequate rarely turn out well.
This is unsupported because the initial conceptualization may be able to be refined over a series of many drafts even if the initial conceptualization was inadequate.
E
A designer will never see advantages and flaws in a design idea without the aid of a sketch.
This is unsupported because while a sketch helps designers see flaws, it is too strong to say that sketches are a necessary condition of seeing flaws as answer choice E implies.