|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 172
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 99
|
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to [#permalink]
 06 Dec 2012, 20:55
Question Stats:
29% (01:52) correct
70% (01:05) wrong based on 4 sessions
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But 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. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.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 (B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol (C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime (D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable (E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it OA after discussion..
_________________
[i]Kudos not only to one who answered correctly but also to one who put the question...[/i]
Last edited by sujit2k7 on 08 Dec 2012, 21:19, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 298
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
41
[0], given: 32
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
06 Dec 2012, 22:44
sujit2k7 wrote: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But 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. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.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
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it
OA after discussion.. Hi sujit2k7.. Yes OA is very debatable, none seems OK to me... My reasons are... (A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime This is already stated in the premise " But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence "(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol This cannot be the answer, as we are discussing about the ill effect. the argument says : if alcohol can lead to abuse and violence and still be in the market, then marijuana also can also be. So benefits are out of scope, IMO.(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime This also we know from the argument, 1st and 2nd line of the argument says this...(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable The argument talks about whether the Marijuana regulation should be repealed or not, ability to enforce it is a subject of different argument. (E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it The argument already says "alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands" If I were forced to pick one then I would go with A,which seems closest to the argument. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Never ever give up on youself.Period.
Joined: 23 Aug 2012
Posts: 133
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
GMAT 1: 570 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V33
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
38
[0], given: 31
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
06 Dec 2012, 23:18
IMO B has to be the answer. Cause author talks about violence caused by both Alcohol and Marijuana..only if we weigh benefits of both these things, we can decide whether to regulate or not. As both causes violence , marijuana has more benefits (B) and alcohol is not banned, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed(conclusion).
_________________
Don't give up on yourself ever. Period.
Beat it, no one wants to be defeated (My journey from 570 to 690) : beat-it-no-one-wants-to-be-defeated-journey-570-to-149968.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 172
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 99
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
08 Dec 2012, 21:18
Confused between C and A. Need help
_________________
[i]Kudos not only to one who answered correctly but also to one who put the question...[/i]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
64
[0], given: 60
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
08 Dec 2012, 23:35
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But 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. 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 The argument says it can lead to this statement fills a gap.The problem here is the inconsistency treatment, you have a set of rules for cannabis and no rules for the other side. The question is why this law doesn't make sense and should be repealed? only when we justify something about alcohol, it fills a gap. (C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime There are publications present which say that marijuana causes crime. This statement is also challenging a fact highlighted in red. it does provide support for marijuana but doesn't answer the challenge question, these question types are tricky "Most support" there can be a weak strengthener and a stronger one... PS: There is a thread already present on this question the-purpose-of-regulation-of-cannabis-143599.html
_________________
Click kudos if my post helped.
Create a login and try 500+ questions for free - http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-test/
Amazing free video solutions for OG 12,13,quant review etc - http://www.gmatquantum.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 172
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 99
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
09 Dec 2012, 00:37
nelz007 wrote: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But 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. 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 The argument says it can lead to this statement fills a gap.The problem here is the inconsistency treatment, you have a set of rules for cannabis and no rules for the other side. The question is why this law doesn't make sense and should be repealed? only when we justify something about alcohol, it fills a gap. (C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime There are publications present which say that marijuana causes crime. This statement is also challenging a fact highlighted in red. it does provide support for marijuana but doesn't answer the challenge question, these question types are tricky "Most support" there can be a weak strengthener and a stronger one... PS: There is a thread already present on this question the-purpose-of-regulation-of-cannabis-143599.htmlThnkx @nelz007 for your reply.... Sry I do not fully agree with you.. C) As per the publications they tried to relate marijuana with crime. But no where it is written that marijuana causes crime.. Now as per my understanding A) tells Alcohol causes crime but it does not mean marijuana does not cause the crime(as previous publications always tried to prove)..so to attack the conclusion that regulation need to be repealed, I have to give a reason the regulation was not fruitful..... Please correct my understanding
_________________
[i]Kudos not only to one who answered correctly but also to one who put the question...[/i]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
64
[0], given: 60
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
09 Dec 2012, 01:43
sujit2k7 wrote:
Thnkx @nelz007 for your reply.... Sry I do not fully agree with you..
C) As per the publications they tried to relate marijuana with crime. But no where it is written that marijuana causes crime..
Now as per my understanding A) tells Alcohol causes crime but it does not mean marijuana does not cause the crime(as previous publications always tried to prove)..so to attack the conclusion that regulation need to be repealed, I have to give a reason the regulation was not fruitful..... Please correct my understanding
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes.Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime]. But 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.[b] Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed. it is mentioned over there (red) that it was done to reduce crime. sry, highlighted the wrong part earlier. The situation here is there is a regulation so some sort of enforcement on cannabis and this regulation doesn't make sense, the main premise for this (blue). Now alcohol can lead to crime no proof yet, we need something that would justify that alcohol does lead to crime. A does exactly that and supports the argument saying there is an inconsistent treatment.
_________________
Click kudos if my post helped.
Create a login and try 500+ questions for free - http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-test/
Amazing free video solutions for OG 12,13,quant review etc - http://www.gmatquantum.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Pill Instructor
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 891
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 79
Kudos [?]:
216
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
10 Dec 2012, 10:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
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: http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/1314
_________________
      
... and more
Zeke Lee, GMAT Pill Study Method (Study Less. Score More.) | Download Ebook
- How A McKinsey Analyst Struggled with GMAT for 2 Yrs
- GMAT Score From 650 to 760 + 25 Minutes left on the exam! Wow!
GMAT Pill Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 235
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
64
[0], given: 60
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis [#permalink]
10 Dec 2012, 21:16
Thanks Zeke! with the video explanation open to public it should be crystal clear if any doubts still remain. gmatpill wrote: Here's the original question along with a video explanation: http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/1314_________________
Click kudos if my post helped.
Create a login and try 500+ questions for free - http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-test/
Amazing free video solutions for OG 12,13,quant review etc - http://www.gmatquantum.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis
[#permalink]
10 Dec 2012, 21:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
