Passage Summary: The law punishes drunk drivers more harshly if they happen to hurt someone, even though morality only cares about what you intended to do; this proves that law and morality aren't the same thing.

Conclusion: Legal responsibility is a distinct concept from moral responsibility because it accounts for factors beyond just intent.

Reasoning: Moral responsibility is based solely on a person's intentions, but the law imposes different penalties for the same act (drunk driving) based on the accidental outcome (whether someone was injured).

Analysis: The statement in question describes a specific legal reality used to illustrate a broader point. I identified this as a premise because the author uses this observation about drunk driving penalties to show that the law considers 'results,' which contrasts with the definition of 'moral responsibility' provided later. It serves as the factual evidence needed to drive the wedge between the two types of responsibility. Focus on how this example anchors the comparison between intent and outcome.