Explanation
We are seeking to identify a flaw in the student's reasoning. The student's conclusion relies on the assumption that past failures to curb drinking behavior will necessarily repeat with the new penalties. This overlooks any differences between the past measures and the new ones. The flaw likely involves an overreliance on past results to predict future outcomes, failing to account for variables that could change the effectiveness of the new penalties.
A. The student’s argument does not hinge on the specific details of the new penalties; it is based on the assumption that any effort, regardless of its nature, will be as ineffective as those in the past.
B. The argument does not address how many students drank or did not drink in the past, so the presence or absence of previous drinking behavior is not relevant to the argument's flaw.
C. There is no mention of students' preferences for drinking locations in the argument, so presumptions about preferred drinking locations are not part of the argument's reasoning.
D. (Correct Response) The argument fails to consider the possibility that the new penalties are different from the previous attempts in significant ways that could affect their success rate. This is a critical oversight and constitutes a flaw in reasoning, as it assumes that all attempts to curb behavior will have the same result without considering their distinct characteristics.
E. While considering other consequences of the new penalties could be important in a broader discussion, the argument is specifically about the penalties' effectiveness in reducing drinking, not their other possible effects. Therefore, this is not the flaw we are asked to identify.