In an effort to curb drug abuse, the government has imposed strict law

i think that both choice C and D are clear in the evidence. this means choice C and D are correct in the argument already. so, the problem is choice B
B is good.

Confused between B & D... If had to, would have chosen D...


Sent from my iPad using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

B.

As D says, majority of users, what majority? We do not know the actual numbers, it could be as close as 50.1 and 49.9, and thus not make much difference in the business of drug peddling.

In B, if the payoff is more, then the program will fail, as people may take risk to make quick bucks. If the payoff is no good, then the program will be a success, and the Govt. would be able to curb the drug use issue by focusing on the supply side (and not the demand side).

Let me know your thought

I think the answer should be D

A. Whether efforts have been successfully taken in any other country to regulate drug users. - Whether other countries have been successful or not may or may not have an impact on this country's implementation
B. Whether the payoff from selling drugs outweighs the severity of the punishment This one is tempting. However, the payoff vs punishment scale seems vague. This could mean that the majority of the drugs are sold by a minority of dealers who do believe that the payoff outweighs the punishment.
C. Whether drugs will continue to be sold at a premium when there are dealers in the market again This answer choice goes beyond the scope of the timeline.
D. Whether the majority of the users will be willing to pay a premium to continue to use the drugsThis choice is correct (IMO). The author assumes that the demand will continue to be at the same level and concludes that drugs will be sold at a premium. However, If there are no buyers at the premium rate then rates will have to go back down and dealing will not be as lucrative. Conversely, if there are buyers, the rates will go up just like the author predicts. This option offers two paths and therefore is useful in evaluating the argument
E. Whether the government will be able to keep track of new dealers as and when they enter the market This option seems out of scope

A. Whether efforts have been successfully taken in any other country to regulate drug users. Irrelevant

B. Whether the payoff from selling drugs outweighs the severity of the punishment. IMO B because if the severity of the punishment outweighs the
benefit from dealing, new dealers won't enter the market knowing that the risks are great and the old ones will be in jail.

C. Whether drugs will continue to be sold at a premium when there are dealers in the market again. Irrelevant

D. Whether the majority of the users will be willing to pay a premium to continue to use the drugs. I find this irrelevant because when a person is
addicted to drugs, he/she will pay whatever is needed to acquire them. So the answer to the question whether they will pay a premium is "Of course they will."

E. Whether the government will be able to keep track of new dealers as and when they enter the market. Irrelevant

Explanation

Step 1: Analyzing the Argument

The author believes that the government should prosecute drug users and not dealers in order to control drug abuse.

In order to evaluate the argument, the answer option has to evaluate this suggestion made by the author. So, the correct option would be one that determines one or all of the following whether prosecuting drug users is possible if possible, then will such a measure be as or more effective than prosecuting drug dealers whether for some reason, the current steps taken by the government are effective in tackling drug abuse.

Step 2: Eliminating Options

Option (A) can be eliminated because what worked in other countries need not necessarily work in this one. The answer option has to evaluate whether the recommendation would work in this particular scenario.

Option (B) can be eliminated because if the payoffs are outweighing the punishment, that would mean that there would be more dealers involved in drug dealing. The argument implies that this will already happen so this option does nothing to evaluate the author’s recommendation.

Option (C) does not evaluate whether drug abuse would reduce or increase. What needs to be evaluated is drug usage and not drug dealing. For similar reasons, Option (E) can also be eliminated. Keeping track of new dealers does not necessarily keep track of drug dealing or usage.

Option (D) evaluates the argument because the author’s primary argument against the government’s actions is that the current efforts will not curb drug usage, and that sale of drugs will continue happening at a premium. However, if most drug users do not wish to pay the premium charged, then the sale and usage of drugs will come down and the government’s current measures will prove to be effective enough.

Option D is the correct answer.

Hope it helps

In an effort to curb drug abuse, the government has imposed strict laws to prosecute the dealers. However, such an initiative is unlikely to be effective. Prosecuting dealers will lead to a shortage of drugs. At the same time, because no efforts are being taken to curb demand, drugs will be sold at a premium, attracting more people to the very remunerative job of drug dealing. Therefore, to effectively reduce drug abuse, the government will have to prosecute the drug users and not dealers.

Which of the following is the most relevant information in evaluating the credibility of the argument?

A. Whether efforts have been successfully taken in any other country to regulate drug users.

B. Whether the payoff from selling drugs outweighs the severity of the punishment

C. Whether drugs will continue to be sold at a premium when there are dealers in the market again

D. Whether the majority of the users will be willing to pay a premium to continue to use the drugs

The author assumes that the demand will continue to be at the same level and concludes that drugs will be sold at a premium. However, If there are no buyers at the premium rate then rates will have to go back down and dealing will not be as lucrative. Conversely, if there are buyers, the rates will go up just like the author predicts. This option offers two paths and therefore is useful in evaluating the argument

E. Whether the government will be able to keep track of new dealers as and when they enter the market


IMO D