iamba wrote:
Letter writer: Illegal drug use is often associated with other serious problems, such as armed robbery and 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 armed robbery and other violent crime. If drugs were no longer illegal, the price would drop precipitously, and drug users would no longer need to commit crimes 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?
A) The first is support offered by the letter writer for a certain forecast; the second is that forecast.
B) The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that position.
C) The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer argues is an infallible predictor of future events; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that relationship would not apply.
D) The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the future; the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
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.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The letter writer believes that if criminal penalties for drug use are eliminated, the incidence of armed robbery and other violent crimes will decrease. In support of that belief, the letter writer offers the second boldface portion of the argument: an assertion that crimes are committed by drug users because they need money to buy expensive illegal drugs, and that if drugs were legal and therefore cheaper, the crimes would become unnecessary. The first boldface portion of the argument mentions an observed relationship between drug use and other crimes: when drug use declines, other crimes decline as well. This observation is counter to the letter writer’s ultimate claim.
(A) The letter writer forecasts that violent crime will decline even if drug use is decriminalized. The first boldface portion does not offer support for that forecast, but rather evidence that violent crime decreases when anti-drug laws are enforced. The second boldface portion is not the letter writer’s forecast, but rather the support given for it.
(B) The first boldface portion is an observation that violent crime decreases when anti-drug laws are enforced; that observation weighs against the letter writer’s main position, but falls short of refuting his claim that violent crime will decrease as a result of decriminalizing drug use. The second boldface portion is support for the letter writer’s main position, not the position itself.
(C) The first boldface portion shows a direct relationship between a decline in drug activity and a decline in violent crime, but the letter writer does not argue that future events are predicted by this relationship. In fact, the letter writer ultimately claims the opposite: that violent crime will decrease when criminal penalties for drug use are eliminated, even if drug use increases as a result.
(D) CORRECT. The first boldface portion shows a direct relationship between a decline in drug activity and a decline in violent crime, but the letter writer claims that violent crime will decrease when criminal penalties for drug use are eliminated, even if drug use increases as a result. If true, the information in the second boldface section explains why the letter writer makes that claim: that the high cost of illegal drugs is the reason drug users commit violent crimes, so cheaper, legalized drugs will cause crime to decline.
(E) The first boldface portion is presented by the letter writer as true. However, the second boldface is not an inference drawn from the first boldface portion; rather, it contradicts the first boldface portion.