mikemcgarry wrote:
Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal.
Attorney General: Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.
The Attorney General uses which of the following techniques in responding to the marijuana advocate?
(A) citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false
(B) pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises
(C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect
(D) arguing that the same assumption could be used to support an opposing conclusion
(E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantagesFor a discussion of Dialogue Structure Questions, as well as a full explanation to this question, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-cr-di ... questions/Mike
Great question
mike! nuanced language and subtle options........took me more than 4 . mins and makes me nervous as i have to roll with the exam in a month:(
close
