Question:

When a driver is suspected of having had too much to drink, testing the driver's ability to walk a straight line gives a more reliable indication of fitness to drive than does testing the driver's blood-alcohol level.
Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim made in the statement above?

Show Hint

In "support the claim" questions, focus on the specific comparison being made. The claim is that Test A is more reliable than Test B for a specific purpose. The best support will highlight a strength of Test A or a weakness of Test B that is relevant to that purpose.
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • Not all observers will agree whether or not an individual has succeeded in walking a straight line.
  • Because of genetic differences and variations in acquired tolerance to alcohol, some individuals suffer more serious motor impairment from a given high blood-alcohol level than do others.
  • Tests designed to measure blood-alcohol levels are accurate, inexpensive, and easy to administer.
  • More than half the drivers involved in fatal accidents have blood-alcohol levels that exceed the legal limit, whereas in less-serious accidents the proportion of legally intoxicated drivers is lower.
  • Some individuals with high blood-alcohol levels are capable of walking a straight line but are not capable of driving safely.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for the best support for the claim that a physical coordination test (walking a straight line) is a more reliable indicator of driving fitness than a chemical test (blood-alcohol level, or BAL). The key concept is "reliability for indicating fitness to drive," which is directly related to motor impairment.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The claim compares two tests. To support it, we need to find a reason why the BAL test is less reliable or the walking test is more reliable at assessing a person's actual ability to drive.
- (A) This weakens the claim by suggesting the walking test is subjective and therefore not reliable.
- (B) This statement provides a direct reason why the BAL test is unreliable as an indicator of impairment. It states that the same BAL can affect people differently. One person at 0.08% might be severely impaired, while another with high tolerance might show less impairment. The walking test, however, directly measures the motor impairment itself, regardless of the BAL reading. This makes it a more direct and thus more reliable test of the physical skills needed for driving.
- (C) This supports the value of the BAL test, which contradicts the claim.
- (D) This shows a correlation between high BAL and accidents, which supports the use of BAL tests and weakens the claim.
- (E) This weakens the claim by showing that the walking test can fail to identify an unsafe driver (a false negative), suggesting it is not reliable.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (B) best supports the claim by explaining that BAL is an indirect and inconsistent measure of motor impairment, whereas the walking test measures the impairment directly.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Logical Reasoning

View More Questions

Questions Asked in GRE exam

View More Questions