Although only 2 percent of drivers on Lalaland’s highways drove sports cars, 25 percent of all vehicles ticketed for drunk driving in the past 90 days were sports cars. Clearly, sports car drivers on Lalaland highways are more likely to drive drunk than are drivers of other kinds of vehicles.
The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Drivers on Lalaland highways drive drunk more often than do drivers on highways not covered in the report.
B. Many of the vehicles ticketed for drunk driving were ticketed more than once during the time period covered by the report.
C. Drivers who are ticketed for drunk driving are more likely to drive drunk regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.
D. The number of drivers ticketed for drunk driving was greater than the number of sportscars.
E. Drivers of sports cars are less likely to be ticketed for drunk driving than are drivers of other kinds of cars.
Got stumped on this one.. basically, misinterpreted the conclusion
Instead of "Clearly, sports car drivers on Lalaland highways are more likely to drive drunk than are drivers of other kinds of vehicles
" I went on with something like "Clearly, it is more likely that sports car drivers (than the drivers of other kinds of vehicles on Lalaland highways) drive drunk.
After reading the explanation (This argument makes the connection between the likelihood of driving drunk and the kind of car one drives. The unstated assumption is that those who are ticketed drive drunk more often than those who are not ticketed.
) the argument and assumption appear pretty straight forward and so does the OA
I am just wondering isn't the line of thought/conclusion that I took more natural/real world.
Isn't the actual conclusion tad artificial and "logic for logic's sake" kind?
Can someone throw an OG question with similar line of tought/argument.
Many thanks | Supratim Choudhury