A policy brief claims that nobody is impaired below 0.08% BAC and that emergency services are unnecessary until BAC exceeds 0.30%. Which critique best evaluates this claim using the continuum principle?

• A. The brief is valid since alcohol has no acute physiologic effect until metabolic saturation occurs at 0.30%, which aligns with standard toxicology findings about immediate risk.
• B. The claim is flawed: impairment increases along a continuous scale, so some individuals show meaningful impairment below 0.08% and clinical risks emerge long before 0.30% in certain contexts; binary cutoffs oversimplify risk.
• C. It is correct to ignore values under 0.08% for all public-safety decisions because low BACs provide objective evidence of safe performance across populations in every task, including driving and operating machinery.
• D. The policy is accurate because physiological responses to alcohol are identical in all individuals and only a single, high universal BAC threshold like 0.30% can be used to justify emergency treatment.

Answer: (B)