Question

Which of the following, if true about the years 1990 through 1992, most helps to explain the data illustrated in the graph?

• A. Most of the people arrested for and convicted of drunken driving were repeat offenders.
• B. Many of the people arrested for and convicted of drunken driving participated in alcohol-education programs in order to reduce their jail sentences.
• C. Juries in drunken driving cases became increasingly reluctant to convict people on whom mandatory jail sentences would be imposed.
• D. Since the law was enacted, the number of deaths attributed to drunken driving has declined significantly.
• E. The majority of the residents of the country supported the strict law to deter people from drunken driving.
• A. Before 1990 only people driving erratically were stopped by the police on suspicion of drunken driving, but since the beginning of 1990 police have been allowed to stop drivers randomly and to arrest any driver whom they suspect of having drunk any alcohol.
• B. Since the beginning of 1990 new technology has enabled police who stop a driver to establish immediately whether the driver is drunk, whereas before 1990 police had to rely on observations of a driver's behavior to make a judgment about that driver's drunkenness.
• C. After 1990 the number of police officers assigned to patrol for drunken drivers increased only very slightly compared to the number of police officers assigned to patrol for drunken drivers in the years 1985 through 1989.
• D. In 1990 a greater number of drivers were ignorant of the laws concerning drunken driving than were ignorant of the drunken driving laws in 1989.
• J. After 1990 teenagers and young adults constituted a greater proportion of those arrested for drunken driving than in the years 1985 through 1989.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks for a plausible explanation for the trends shown in the graph specifically after the new law was enacted in 1990. We must analyze the graph to see what changed at that point.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
1. Observe the trend before 1990: The number of arrests and convictions were relatively close to each other.
2. Observe the trend from 1990 onward: The number of arrests remains high, but the number of convictions drops dramatically, creating a wide gap between the two lines.
3. The correct answer must explain why convictions would fall sharply while arrests did not.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The key event is the new law in 1990, which imposes "mandatory jail sentences." This is a very strict, inflexible punishment. We need to consider how such a law might affect the judicial process.
- (A) The status of offenders (repeat or first-time) does not explain why the conviction rate would suddenly plummet.
- (B) Education programs to reduce sentences happen after a conviction. This cannot explain why the number of convictions themselves went down.
- (C) This option suggests that juries, faced with the certainty of a harsh, mandatory jail sentence, became less willing to hand down a "guilty" verdict. This phenomenon, known as jury nullification or simple reluctance, would directly cause the number of convictions to fall, even if the number of arrests (people charged) remained the same. This perfectly explains the widening gap seen in the graph.
- (D) A decline in deaths speaks to the law's potential effectiveness in deterring the behavior, but it does not explain the conviction statistics.
- (E) General public support for a law does not guarantee that juries will apply it in every specific case, especially when the punishment is severe and mandatory.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The most logical explanation for a sharp drop in convictions following the imposition of a mandatory harsh penalty is that the decision-makers in the legal system (juries) became more reluctant to convict.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question presents a specific explanation for the graph's data: the conviction rate dropped because police started arresting more innocent people after 1990. We need to find the answer choice that provides a reason why this would happen.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The claim is that the "quality" of arrests went down (more non-guilty people were arrested). We need to find an option that describes a change in police procedure that would logically lead to more arrests based on weaker evidence.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
- (A) This describes a significant change in police procedure. Before 1990, stops were based on strong evidence ("driving erratically"). After 1990, stops could be random and arrests based on mere "suspicion." This shift from evidence-based stops to suspicion-based arrests would inevitably lead to a higher number of arrested individuals who were not actually drunk. When these cases go to court, they would be dismissed or result in acquittal due to lack of evidence, thus lowering the overall conviction rate. This strongly strengthens the claim.
- (B) This would weaken the claim. If new technology allows police to be more accurate in determining drunkenness at the time of the stop, they would arrest fewer innocent people, which would likely cause the conviction rate to go up, not down.
- (C) The number of officers on patrol doesn't explain why the proportion of innocent people being arrested would increase.
- (D) Driver ignorance of the law is irrelevant to whether they are actually drunk when arrested.
- (E) The age of the arrestees does not explain why a larger percentage of them would be innocent.
Step 4: Final Answer:
A change in police tactics from stopping drivers based on clear evidence to stopping them randomly and arresting on suspicion would directly lead to more innocent people being arrested, which in turn would cause the conviction rate to fall.