Letter writer: Illegal drug use is often associated with other serious

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.
_________________

anyone else weigh in on this? on second review I think it should be B, how can D be the answer? When does he say he believes that the first statement will not hold true in the future? there is no reason for that statement not to hold true by any argument he makes.

hey terp i agree with you that D (although it is OA) is somehow strange... since the author indeed never mentions something about the future... future and hypothetical scenario are two very different things...

however, your choice B can't be the answer since the author's position is not the bold sentence. the actual position is "eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of armed robbery and other violent crime". the second sentences serves as support

i think it is not one of the best questions of MGMAT... i think one weakness is also a missing differentiation between enforcing laws by police and eliminating penalities... whatever...

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

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.

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

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

Okay, the qestion stem indicates that illegal drug use is related to armed robbery and other violent crimes.



Supports the point illegal drug use is related to armed robbery and other violent crimes.



Presents another opposite reason then stated in the first bold part that leads to the same end result - decrease in the violent crimes.

In the letter writer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


First part okay, but second is not that forecast. Indeed the second part supports the first part's.



Again both the first and second are observations that leads to the same end result - decrease in the violent crimes.



I am lost now. mikemcgarry, GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo


well the second isn't drawn from the first statement. It's an independent observation (statistic).

How can D be correct??

D says "The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the future;"

OK! the 1st boldface clearly states the relationship between two activities "each time police increase their enforcement, crime goes down". But where in the 1st boldface part is it written that this relationship will not hold in future???

D is correct because the relationship that if anti drug laws are implemented more will decrease the crime rates will not hold true.Since,implementing laws on the illegal drugs,prices will not drop and drug addicts will have to commit crimes like robbery to get money to pay for those costly drugs.The entire argument is based on the fact that drug addicts commit crimes to get money to pay for the illegal drugs.Thus eliminating strict laws will actually decrease the crime rates.

Posted from my mobile device

The first part of D says "....that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the future". However, nowhere in the entire passage does the writer claim that drug legalisation is a certain future event. Rather, by using the phrase "If drugs were no longer illegal, the...", he merely analyses a hypothetical scenario, or an alternate reality, which may or may not pertain to the upcoming future.
Bunuel, could you please help with this?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________