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?
The problem with C is that: X = total number of people under 21 in Berinia Y% = total percent of people who drinks (remains relatively constant) A% = total percent of car owners under the 21 BEFORE the change in legal drinking age B% = total percent of car owners under the 21 AFTER the change
The amount of people who can drink and drive before: X * Y * A The amount of people who can drink and drive after: X * Y * B Based on the condition that B > A we can conclude that after > before, doesn't explain the decrease in alcohol-related traffic death.
I always figure out the constant factors first, stop paying attention to them and then focus on what's changed. Without listing out the formulas, you can figure out that X and Y remained constant. So focus on the only thing that changed (car owners) and see how it affects the overall result (accidents).