CR: In Berinia, the age at which people could begin to drink

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

I do not understand how to solve this problem. Please help.

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 to reduce alcoholrelated 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.

[mikrodj]

This is a solve the paradox problem. In this kind of problem you're looking for a solution that makes all the "facts" in the problem be true. In other words, everything has to make sense.

Let's take a look at the problem

fact 1: the age at which people could begin to drink alcohol legally used to be 18
fact 2: In 1990, in an attempt to reduce alcohol consumption and thereby to reduce alcoholrelated traffic deaths among Berinians under 21, the legal drinking age was raised to 21

the author here assumes that less alcohol reduces traffic accidents

fact 3:Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people under 21 have decreased significantly since 1990.

This is what was expected.

fact4: Nevertheless, surveys show that people in that age-group drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.

here comes the contradiction. People under 21 drink more now but Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people under 21 have decreased.

Before jumping to the answers you should keep the scope of the argument. People under 21.


A. For the population as a whole, annual alcohol consumption is no lower now
than it was in 1990.

we are interested in people under 21 rather than all people. out.

B. Alcohol consumption away from home, for example in bars and restaurants, is
much lower among people under 21 than it was in 1990.

OK here the answer choice refers to our group.
You should wonder here whether this answer makes all the facts true

we're interested in facts 3 and 4, since 1 and 2 are always true.

fact 3:Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people under 21 have decreased significantly since 1990.

since people under 21 drink less when they are away from home, they drink less when they have to drive. This could explain the decreased in deaths.

fact4: Nevertheless, surveys show that people in that age-group drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990

Perhaps people under 21 are drinking now more at home, a practice that make them drink (in total) just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.
This answer choice seems to solve the problem.

C. The proportion of people under 21 who own a car is higher now than it was in
1990.

This answer choice says that there are more drivers under 21 and fact4 says that people under 21 drink now the same, so this cannot explain why now the number of deaths has decreased.

out

D. Alcohol consumption is lower among people under 21 than among adults in
most other age-groups.

Again this comparison is out of scope. It doesn't help to solve the paradox

E. Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people over 21 have increased slightly
since 1990.
the group of people is out of scope. Remember that our group is under 21

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

B. Alcohol consumption away from home, for example in bars and restaurants, is
much lower among people under 21 than it was in 1990.

OK here the answer choice refers to our group.
You should wonder here whether this answer makes all the facts true

we're interested in facts 3 and 4, since 1 and 2 are always true.

fact 3:Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people under 21 have decreased significantly since 1990.

since people under 21 drink less when they are away from home, they drink less when they have to drive. This could explain the decreased in deaths.

fact4: Nevertheless, surveys show that people in that age-group drink just as much alcohol as they did before 1990

Perhaps people under 21 are drinking now more at home, a practice that make them drink (in total) just as much alcohol as they did before 1990.
This answer choice seems to solve the problem.

You are assuming that when people go out and consume alcohol, they are driving by themselves. What about if they go out by taxi, public transport or taken by her parents or people over 21?
Anyway, choice B is the only one that is related to the topic, isn't it?

[mikrodj]

IMO the answer choice to a paradox problem has to allow all the facts to be true, but not necessarily has to make them be true. As you said I assumed that example to explain the paradox. Anyway as you said just keeping in mind the scope you can eliminate most answer choices here.

[RonPurewal]

this problem is treated nicely above, but here are some general comments.

takeaway:
whenever a problem statement references some vague term, such as "the goal", "the discrepancy", "the paradox", "the conclusion", etc., you must specify EXACTLY what this is, IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN.
if you do this, then it should be much easier to answer the question.

--

in this case, there's a "discrepancy", which means that there are two statements that appear contradictory, but which actually aren't contradictory.

the main challenge of the problem is to locate those two statements and to pick a statement that best explains how they can both be true at the same time.

the two seemingly contradictory statements are:
(1) people under 21 drink just as much as they used to.
(2) these same people aren't getting into alcohol-related traffic deaths as often as they used to.

choice (b) explains how these can both be true: they're still drinking just as much ... but not to places that are away from home. therefore, not as much need to drive.

@ cesar

You are assuming that when people go out and consume alcohol, they are driving by themselves. What about if they go out by taxi, public transport or taken by her parents or people over 21?

this needn't be true for everyone. as long as some people drive to these places, choice (b) is sufficient to explain the presence of a discrepancy.