Get detailed explanations to advanced GMAT questions.


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 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?


Option A:

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

Option B:

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

Option C:

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

Option D:

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

Option E:

Alcohol-related traffic deaths among people over 21 have increased slightly since 1990.

Difficulty Level



Option B is the correct answer.

Option Analysis

Question type: Resolve the paradox.  

Summary of the argument: There is a clear controversy in the argument. Despite the legal age for alcohol consumption increased from 18 to 21 and the number of accidents has gone down, the amount of alcohol consumed still remained constant.  


A) This is what the argument says. However, the argument doesn’t address the other part of the controversy.  

B) Correct Answer

C) We are not worried about the proportion of people owning a car as it doesn’t bridge the argument.  

D) Doesn’t help bridge the controversy.  

E) This doesn’t tell why the amount of alcohol still remains constant.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *