Please, please, please explain why it's not B

"The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that position."? Thanks.

----------
Letter writer: Illegal drug use is often associated with other violent crimes. Statistics indicate that each time police increase their enforcement of anti-drug laws in the city, the number of violent crimes committed in the city declines as a result. However, eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime. If drugs were no longer illegal, the price would drop precipitously, and drug users would be less likely to use illegal means to acquire the money necessary to support their drug habits.

In the letter writer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

The first is support offered by the letter writer for a certain forecast; the second is that forecast.

The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that position.

The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will hold in the case at hand; the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.

The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.

The first is a statement that the letter writer believes is true; the second is presented as a logical inference drawn from the truth of that statement.

Pick between C and D.

would support that prediction. -----> The prediction is crimes will decline.

C : second part is correct. First is wrong "letter writer predicts will hold in the case at hand". This is talking about police intervention. Cops are not required if the crime declines on its own.

B : "refutes the main position" - wrong. Both the ways want to reduce the crime. The methods of achieving is different. But the position / side is the same i.e. reduce the crime.

D both the parts are consistent - Police are not required if crime will reduce on its own. Its just a prediction.
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

The first is a direct relationship between two activities --- this is clear. I hope.

The case at hand is - how to reduce the violent crimes in the city? He gunned the "illegal drug use" as the problem in the opening statement. Illegal drug use is often associated with other violent crimes.

What will not hold? Police intervention (enforcement of anti-drug laws ) will not hold if the second method is used.

Hope all makes sense now.


_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

I believe it should be C

if you find one of this bold questions in D examn, that means that you are doing great
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Phew got this one right!!!!....Been a disaster today!

Hey All,

A lot of people still like C here, so I just want to make clear. The bolded statement says that when you get more police enforcement of drug crime, other crime goes down. But the conclusion of the overall argument is that if you make drugs legal (which would mean there was absolutely NO police enforcement of drug crime, which they told us before usually made other crime go down), other crime would STILL go down. This is why the answer is D. The final conclusion goes AGAINST that first premise we were given.

Make sense?

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

+1 for D