Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the sta

Dear gauravkaushik8591,
I'm happy to respond.

The marijuana advocate assumes that, when pot is legal, the pot-related crimes will stop.

The attorney general assumes the opposite: that when pot is legal, the criminal culture supporting pot will continue.

Those two do not have the same assumption. They have 100% polar opposite assumptions.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike.
This is a toughie
As I see it, the assumption would be: pot is legal.
The conclusions that are made are opposing...
I chose D too...
Can you elaborate a little more?

Dear ronr34
I'm happy to respond. This is tricky. The marijuana advocate begins "If marijuana were legalized in this state ..." That's NOT an assumption. GMAT assumptions are unstated. This is a hypothetical prediction, and the marijuana advocate makes an argument (involving an assumption) within this hypothetical scenario. He seems to make the assumption that, if marijuana were legalized, then all growers and distributors of marijuana would "play by the rules" like good citizens and pay all their due taxes. The attorney general does not make this same assumption: in fact, the attorney general cites evidence that seems to call that assumption into question.

Remember, if you can see it printed in black and white in the prompt, it is definitely not an assumption.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

yes...
gotta keep that in mind always

can anyone please tell me why A is wrong

citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false,
evidence:- Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries
the conclusion (of the marijuana advocate):the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal

this tremendous gain is the reduction is crime and increase in revenue, now since the AG has proved using his example that the crimes will not reduce the crime hence he is disproving the MA's conclusion.

Dear jacobneroth,
I'm the author of this question, and I am happy to respond.

Here's the text of the question again:
Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal.

Attorney General: Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.

The Attorney General uses which of the following techniques in responding to the marijuana advocate?
(A) citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false
(B) pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises
(C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect
(D) arguing that the same assumption could be used to support an opposing conclusion
(E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantages

The marijuana advocate was talking about the relationship between marijuana and crime within some state, presumably a US state. The AG cites evidence in other countries. Is what is true in other countries, with different cultures & languages & economies & historical situations, going to be exactly the same in the state in question? Maybe, maybe not. If something is demonstrably true in France and Argentina and Japan, does that mean it has to be true in a US state, such as Kansas? Maybe, maybe not. It depends. Some things (e.g. basic biology) are more universal, and tend to be true across cultures & countries, while other things (e.g. attitudes toward women's rights) are very context specific and can vary widely form one country to the next. Which would be more representative of how marijuana decriminalization would play out? It's very hard to say. The examples of other countries might be relevant, or things may play out very different in the state in question than they played out in those other countries.

On the GMAT, the word "evidence" means something very specific. I have "evidence" in a specific case only from facts directly pertinent to that particular case. If something is cited from an analogous situation somewhere else, that might be suggestive or persuasive, but technically, it's not what the GMAT would call "evidence." The AG's example of the dynamic in other countries is suggestive of what may happen in the state in question, but strictly speaking, it is not "evidence" in the proper sense.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike!
Your definition of 'evidence' in GMAT world is gonna be very useful.

Hi Mike,

I chose B as the answer for this and here is why i chose this particular answer.

Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal.

Attorney General: Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.

The premise that the increase in legal marijuana would result in decreasing crime is assumed by the advocate but the attorney does not think this way. In fact he thinks just the opposite.
This suggests that both of them have a similar premise but different conclusions related to those premises.
can you suggest why this is the incorrect choice.

Dear akhil911,
I'm happy to respond.

This is very subtle. The marijuana advocate makes an argument: premise (legal marijuana) leads to conclusion (less crime) in this state.

If the AG had focused on the structure of the marijuana advocate's argument, showing a logical problem in the link between premise and conclusion, then (B) would be correct --- in that case, the AG would "point out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises." In other words, the AG would be attacking the essential logic of the marijuana advocate's argument.

That's not what the AG does. The AG doesn't focus at all on the marijuana advocate's argument. Instead, the AG introduces the facts of a completely different situation. In this very different situation, a similar scenario leads to a different outcome. This is NOT a logical attack on the marijuana advocate's argument. Instead, it is introducing new experiences, experience of which the AG is aware and the marijuana advocate, presumably, is unaware. It may be that the marijuana advocate's conclusion follows perfectly logically from his premise, but, as the AG points out, the marijuana advocate simply does not have broad enough experience to appreciate all the ramifications of his argument.

The term "properly follow" is essentially a logical term, and that addresses in the inherent logic of the argument. Not all CR arguments are about logic: the AG simply has more information, which casts what the marijuana advocate said in a different light. Sometimes new information trumps all logic. That's what this question is about.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Boiled down to A and E, but picked A

Can someone tell me how the statement "Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules" is an analogy not an evidence?

My line of thought is that what the advocate is proposing was already tried, but failed, in other countries. This is a fact happened in the past, so its an evidence, right?

Thanks

Hi mike

Specific question with regard to option C-

When we question the purported relationship between cause and effect, does it necessarily mean that reverse may be true OR can we also mean that cause DOES NOT lead to the said effects.??

Thanks

Dear samichange,
My friend, I'm happy to respond. It could mean a few different things.

Consider these three particularly poor arguments.
Argument #1: The fluctuation of the ocean's tides generates a force that causes the Moon move around the Earth.
Argument #2: On any given day, the SF Bay Area BART Trains may be on schedule or may be minutes off from their schedule. Any delay in these BART trains causes a drop in the NY Stock Exchange that day, adversely affecting the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Argument #3: Beer sales are highest when ice cream sales are also highest. Eating ice cream must cause people to want to drink beer.
All of those are absurdly bad arguments. In each of them, we would have every reason to question the purported relationship between cause and effect described in the argument.
In Argument #1, a valid objection would be to say: the tides don't cause the Moon's motion. Instead, the Moon's motion causes the tides. Here the object to "P causes Q" would be the statement "Q causes P." The original argument reversed cause & effect.
In Argument #2, a valid object would be to say: delays on the BART trains have absolutely nothing to do with the behavior of the stock market. They are completely independent and unrelated.
In Argument #3, a high school statistics book classic fallacy: it's not that P causes Q or that Q causes P, but both are caused by a third thing. In this case, the hot summer weather causes a rise in both beer sales and ice cream sales. They appear together and in fact are highly correlated because they are both caused by the same thing.

It turns out, there is a large variety of relationships that two phenomena could have, and a causal relationship, a relationship of cause and effect, is only one possible relationship. If two phenomena are not in a cause and effect relationship, they could have any one of a large number of other relationships.

You asked a question. I just answered it. But the fact that you asked the question didn't "cause" me to answer it. We have a relationship other than the relationship of causality. Many different alternatives for the relationship between two things are possible.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike for the detailed and helpful reply....

I have not only understood but also gained new insights

I believe relationships are always complex !!!

Marijuana Advocate says that making the drug legal will lead to positive chain of events that are good for the state.
Attorney General, without commenting anything on advocates argument, says that some studies were conducted in the past in other countries and have shown opposite results to what advocate is stating.

(A) citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false- Conclusion of Advocate is that state has much to gain by making the drug legal. But, General doesn’t say that the conclusion is false
(B) pointing out that the conclusion doesn’t follow properly from the premises. General doesn’t discuss anything from the advocates argument
(C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect- there is no such question raised
(D) arguing that the same assumption could be used to support an opposing conclusion- Assumption is not same by both authorities
(E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantages- This is correct answer as analogy (studies) is mentioned and result of the studies shows potential drawbacks (increased power of criminals) outweighing the predicted advantages (benefit to the state)

Mike is my understanding right?

Hello,

I am happy to help!

Marijuana Advocate (MA) insists to legalize marijuana in the states that would results in following consequences:

- Increase in sales

- Sales would be legal and hence the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish

- Decrease spends on fighting crimes

Overall Conclusion of MA: High Financial Gain for state

Now the Attorney General (AG) quotes that Identical (please note "identical" not similar) strategies in other states shown:

- Criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules

Additionally as per AG's opinion such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.

What does AG is doing here:

Firstly he is possibly not agreeing to the MA as he is quoting that "Identical Strategy do not work"

Secondly in his opinion "criminals would be free to operate post legalization of marijuana sales". Well, this opinion certainly highlight the drawback of legalizing the marijuana.

Now go to answer choices:

(A) calling into question the validity of the evidence cited

Incorrect. AG do not question validity of evidence provided by MA but presented additional evidences. Also AG presented opinion about the drawback of the MA evidence.

(B) pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises

Incorrect. AG only presents additional evidences and do not cite requirement of additional evidence to prove conclusion "High Financial Gain for state"

(C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect

Incorrect. See explanation under (B)

(D) arguing that the same evidence could be used to prove an opposing conclusion

Incorrect. See explanation under (B)

(E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantages

CORRECT. Our analysis is sync with this choice.

Hope it helps!


"Please hit +1 kudos if you find this explanation useful"

Official Explanation

The AG points out data from other countries, suggesting that things will not as rosy as the marijuana advocate suggests.

The credited answer is (E). The most important point is that what the AG offers does not constitute direct proof by any means, only an analogy to similar situations in other countries. The AG doesn't deny that there might be advantages to legalizing marijuana, but merely points out a host of problems what would also arise.

Choice (A) misses the mark. The marijuana advocate doesn't cite a whole lot of evidence per se. Furthermore, it's not clear that the AG denies, for example, that the state would receive some tax revenues from the legal sale of marijuana. The AG doesn't so much dispute the positive possibilities, but introduces new negative possibilities. The AG doesn't fundamentally question the evidence in the marijuana advocate's argument.

The AG introduces new perspectives, new information. The AG doesn't directly attack the structure of the marijuana advocate's argument. That's why (B) is incorrect.

In both arguments, legalizing marijuana causes all the other social effects --- obviously none of them cause marijuana to become legal! That's why (C) is incorrect.

Similar to (B) --- the AG adds new info, rather than attacking anything about the structure of the marijuana advocate's argument. Also, the word "prove" in (D) is too strong: nothing here constitutes a "proof." That's why (D) is incorrect.

Great question mike! nuanced language and subtle options........took me more than 4 . mins and makes me nervous as i have to roll with the exam in a month:(