GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 15 Feb 2019, 17:43

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### \$450 Tuition Credit & Official CAT Packs FREE

February 15, 2019

February 15, 2019

10:00 PM EST

11:00 PM PST

EMPOWERgmat is giving away the complete Official GMAT Exam Pack collection worth \$100 with the 3 Month Pack (\$299)
• ### Free GMAT practice

February 15, 2019

February 15, 2019

10:00 PM EST

11:00 PM PST

Instead of wasting 3 months solving 5,000+ random GMAT questions, focus on just the 1,500 you need.

# HARD Bold Question

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 30

### Show Tags

Updated on: 25 Jul 2015, 10:17
1
7
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (02:33) correct 48% (02:44) wrong based on 415 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

"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.

Originally posted by knabi on 18 Jul 2010, 12:16.
Last edited by reto on 25 Jul 2015, 10:17, edited 2 times in total.
CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2578
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 12:44
2
B is not correct.

Main position is "However, eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime." not the second bolded part.

The second bolded part supports the above main position but the first will not.

Hence D
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 734
Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 12:55
1
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.
Intern
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 30

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 13:04
Okay, I understand the second bold is a support instead of the main point now...but, "letter writer predicts will not hold in the case at hand"...what is that talking about? "will not hold in the case at hand", what is the case?

Thank you.
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 734
Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 13:16
1
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.

knabi wrote:
Okay, I understand the second bold is a support instead of the main point now...but, "letter writer predicts will not hold in the case at hand"...what is that talking about? "will not hold in the case at hand", what is the case?

Thank you.
Intern
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 30

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2010, 13:43
Thank you very much. I understand now. What makes this answer choice hard is the wording. Any tips to make this type of problems easier in the future?

gave kudos to all.
VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1011
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2010, 13:48
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

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 118

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2010, 03:45
Hurrah first time Bold Face question's answer is right. D

Position/Prediction--- is the conclusion the of the author...So "However, eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime" is the position.

direct relationship between two activities:: took a while to understand 2 actvities---police increase their enforcement,the number of violent crimes committed.

so if the position is true then the first 2 activities don't happen.....OMG what a difficult question to read....

hope that helps
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 199

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2010, 08:39
Phew got this one right!!!!....Been a disaster today!
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 113

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2010, 08:57
Although I saw the OA for me it feels like C

That's the main problem about me I cant agree with OA:))
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 335
Location: San Francisco

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2010, 17:51
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

Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 80
Location: Malawi
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Schools: Tuck '20 (S)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2013, 05:15
Hi all,

My concern is, in D, it is written that - The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the future.
If we break the question down, the first part says that - when anti-drug laws increase, crimes decrease. - This is the only relationship it talks about.
Now, however, the author goes on to say that - when anti-drug laws decrease, crimes decrease. - This in no way is refuting/contradicting the previous relationship.
Isn't the question poorly worded?
Intern
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 24

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2015, 19:52
Hey there,

Request you not to post the answer related things on the top of question.

It kills the interest to solve question
Current Student
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 27
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
GPA: 2.92
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2016, 05:22
Just my 2 cents

The passage's construction is

1st sentence = Common Belief : Illegal drug use is often associated with other violent crimes.
2nd sentence = Fact supporting common belief: 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.
3rd sentence = Author's position : However, eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime.
4th sentence = Prediction that support author's position: 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.

A) The first is support offered by the letter writer for a certain forecast; the second is that forecast.
the first BF goes against the forecast
B) The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that position.
The second BF is not the position
C) 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 writer predict will not hold the first BF
D) 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.
Correct
E) 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.
The second BF didn't drawn from the first one.

Correct me if I'm wrong
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 232
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2018, 07:10
abhimahna

confused in between B and D. Ended up selecting B. A lil help needed
Re: HARD Bold Question   [#permalink] 31 Mar 2018, 07:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by