Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
03 May 2014, 23:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument - “As public concern over drug abuse has increased, authorities have become more vigilant in their efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country. Many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana, which is bulky, or heroin, which has a market too small to justify the risk of severe punishment, to cocaine. Thus enforcement efforts have ironically resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine.”
My response - In the above argument the author concludes that the drug enforcement efforts have ironically resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine. In support of his conclusion the author cites evidence that as public concern over drug abuse increased, authorities became more vigilant to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country and as a result drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana, which is bulky, or heroin, which has a market too small to justify the risk of severe punishment to cocaine. However the author’s conclusion omits crucial assumptions making the argument vulnerable to criticism.
Firstly, drug traffickers switching to cocaine does not warranty that there is an increased use of cocaine. Increase in illegal imports and consumption are two different topics. If imports of a particular product have increased it does not necessarily mean that the consumption for that particular product has also increased. The increase in imports can be attributed for reasons other than consumption. For example, the drug traffickers smuggled cocaine because they plan to re-export cocaine to another country from the country they smuggled cocaine to as it is easier to do it this way rather than smuggling cocaine directly to the other country. If this is true then the argument is weaker. The author should have provided data or facts to demonstrate cocaine consumption levels before and after the authorities have become more vigilant which would have been a better yardstick to draw a conclusion.
Secondly, the author commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (i.e. drug traffickers switching to cocaine) has happened after the other i.e. (authorities have become more vigilant) the second event has been caused by the first event. Drug traffickers may have switched to cocaine for many other reasons such as cocaine is more profitable to sell or they foresee an increased demand for cocaine as people prefer the taste of cocaine than that of marijuana or heroin or new drug users are not aware of marijuana or heroin. If any of this is true then it will be difficult to correlate the two events and the conclusion becomes weaker.
Without compelling reasons to support the correlation it will be difficult to accept the author’s conclusion. To strengthen the conclusion the author should least provide data or facts to demonstrate cocaine consumption levels before and after the authorities have become more vigilant.
My response - In the above argument the author concludes that the drug enforcement efforts have ironically resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine. In support of his conclusion the author cites evidence that as public concern over drug abuse increased, authorities became more vigilant to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country and as a result drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana, which is bulky, or heroin, which has a market too small to justify the risk of severe punishment to cocaine. However the author’s conclusion omits crucial assumptions making the argument vulnerable to criticism.
Firstly, drug traffickers switching to cocaine does not warranty that there is an increased use of cocaine. Increase in illegal imports and consumption are two different topics. If imports of a particular product have increased it does not necessarily mean that the consumption for that particular product has also increased. The increase in imports can be attributed for reasons other than consumption. For example, the drug traffickers smuggled cocaine because they plan to re-export cocaine to another country from the country they smuggled cocaine to as it is easier to do it this way rather than smuggling cocaine directly to the other country. If this is true then the argument is weaker. The author should have provided data or facts to demonstrate cocaine consumption levels before and after the authorities have become more vigilant which would have been a better yardstick to draw a conclusion.
Secondly, the author commits the fallacy of assuming that just because one event (i.e. drug traffickers switching to cocaine) has happened after the other i.e. (authorities have become more vigilant) the second event has been caused by the first event. Drug traffickers may have switched to cocaine for many other reasons such as cocaine is more profitable to sell or they foresee an increased demand for cocaine as people prefer the taste of cocaine than that of marijuana or heroin or new drug users are not aware of marijuana or heroin. If any of this is true then it will be difficult to correlate the two events and the conclusion becomes weaker.
Without compelling reasons to support the correlation it will be difficult to accept the author’s conclusion. To strengthen the conclusion the author should least provide data or facts to demonstrate cocaine consumption levels before and after the authorities have become more vigilant.
21 Dec 2014, 20:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
- In the first paragraph, I would have paraphrased the original passage using more synonyms. I think you are using pretty much the same wording as the passage does.
- I would have included a third paragraph addressing another flaw in the reasoning.
- Your essay has around 400 words and no typos at all. However, it has some minor grammatical mistakes.
I think this is around 4.5 – 5.0, but take my score with a grain of salt. I´m no essay rater…
Cheers,
- In the first paragraph, I would have paraphrased the original passage using more synonyms. I think you are using pretty much the same wording as the passage does.
- I would have included a third paragraph addressing another flaw in the reasoning.
- Your essay has around 400 words and no typos at all. However, it has some minor grammatical mistakes.
I think this is around 4.5 – 5.0, but take my score with a grain of salt. I´m no essay rater…
Cheers,
Moderator:
