The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the

Even I picked C. But the explanation for C not being the right answer is that it fails to provide any reason why regulation of marijuana does not make sense.. A is correct answer because argument states that regulation of alcohol makes no sense and Choice A provides the same effect as marijuana.

OA is right. The problem here is there is an inconsistent law on one side we have

Marijuana >> is related to crime

Alcohol >>> could lead to crime but no law for this ( if you add A to this then it fills a gap)

The main question to answer is, why the law on marijuana should be removed and why this law doesn't make sense? only A does that, cos its providing an additional assumption, which supports and answers the question. (if you go by their framework its method number 2 to strengthen an argument)
I would also think of this question as, it strengthens one side and weakens the other...

If you look carefully at C, it doesn't answer the question.

Hi,

I agree with Nelz.

'C' provides a DIFFERENT reason for not banning Cannabis. So whilst it would provide support to an overall movement to not ban Cannabis, it says nothing about the actual argument being made in the question that both Alcohol and Cannabis have the same effects so should be treated the same.

A tricky one...

James

Hello James,

One doubt, Isnt A a restatement of a premise? the 3 line in the argument says " But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands" so we already know OH indirectly causes crimes, then how can Option A strengthen the Argument?

Cheers

nelz007 - great to see a GMATPill student explain questions to others - that's a sign of true understanding. Keep it up!

Someone suggested that (A) merely repeats what is said in the passage. Well, there is a slight (and important) difference.

Here's the difference:

The passage merely SUGGESTS that alcohol CAN lead to abuse:

"But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands"

Answer choice (A) actually tells you to consider the possibility that that statement is ACTUALLY true.

So the difference is the passage only suggested that it COULD be true. Whereas (A) suggested that it ACTUALLY IS true.

Remember the question: "Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?"

Clearly, we don't know that (A) is true based on the passage. But we are asked to consider - WHAT IF (A) were ACTUALLY true.

Hope that helps.

Here's the original question along with a video explanation: https://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/1314

1. The purpose of regulation marijuana - restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. 2. Campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime.
3. Even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous.

CONCLUSION.- Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime....prospect..answer.......so far only known that it can cause violence... now confirmed that it does yet not banned....
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol...SOUNDS OK..but is'nt....we are not concerned with things other than violence and abuse.... just as being ingrained in people's social life gives reasoning for not banning alcohol, so does this reason to marijuana .
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime.....sort of activity not important.....
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable.that we will see later
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it...so what....does it affect the fact that...regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Facts:
Set #1:
Regulation was made for two reasons:
1. To reduce the number of people consuming “habit-forming drug".
2. To lower the incidence of violent crimes.

Set #2:
Alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands (conditioned)
Alcohol is ingrained in people's social life today.
Sub-conclusion: prohibiting alcohol would be preposterous.

Main Conclusion is more specific about the regulation of marijuana (a habit-forming drug)

Though option A would be a support to prohibit Alcohol too (sub conclusion), it would not lead to the main conclusion: regulation of marijuana makes no sense. Moreover, option A is actually neutralizing the condition of fact 1 of set #1 to strengthen the sub-conclusion.

Main conclusion is precisely about the regulation of habit forming drug category and it is not clear from the argument whether alcohol comes into this category or not.

If the conclusion were to ban Alcohol or Marijuana, yes option A would be a right bet.


Option C creates a doubt on the outcome for which the regulation was actually formed ( Fact 2 of Set #1)

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.