Statement: Should the legal drinking age be lowered? Argument 1: Yes, it will…

In a Statement-and-Arguments question, an argument counts as strong only when it is directly relevant to the statement and points to a significant, well-substantiated practical or ethical consequence; it counts as weak when it is only loosely related, rests on unsubstantiated speculation, or raises a trivial concern.

Apply this test to each argument in turn:

• Argument 1 — reducing the thrill of breaking the law — rests on a speculative psychological effect with no solid, established backing. It is a minor, unsubstantiated consideration, so it fails the strength test.

• Argument 2 — increasing the risk of alcohol-related harm — points to a well-documented, significant public-health and safety consequence of expanding legal access to alcohol. It clears the strength test.

Cross-checking the two: a ‘reduces the thrill of law-breaking’ effect is difficult to substantiate and is typically treated as a weak, speculative claim, whereas increased alcohol-related harm from wider legal access is a measurable, well-established risk — confirming the same split.

• ‘Only Argument 1 is strong’ is wrong because Argument 1 does not clear the strength test.

• ‘Both arguments are strong’ is wrong because Argument 1’s claim does not hold up, even though the other argument does.

• ‘Neither argument is strong’ is wrong because Argument 2’s alcohol-harm point does hold up on its own terms.

So only the argument about increased alcohol-related harm is strong.