Two years ago, officials in Bedenia passed landmark drug legislation

Fact 1: two years ago Bedenia passed legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities. The legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, the major supplier of illegal drugs to Bedenia.
Fact2: The street price for most illegal drugs in the country’s major cities dropped over the past two years.
We need to prove than plan defined in fact1 was successful even after the results talked about in fact2.

A choice which will show that prices of drugs can drop inspite of a reduced import from Gordenia will be the correct answer and will logically complete the passage. Now prices can drop if domestic production increase or import from some other country starts happening or if demand decreases.

The street price of some illegal drugs increased substantially during that time period.
Incorrect as going against fact2

There was a major decrease in the supply of illegal drugs during that time period
Incorrect as it doesn’t say anything about why the supply decreased and is repeat of fact2.

Domestic production of illegal drugs did not increase during that time period.
Incorrect. :domestic production has to increase more than the imports reduction from Gordenia as Gordenia was the major supplier. So just a production increase is not enough.

The street price of some illegal drugs did not drop during that time period.
Incorrect as don’t give us a reason of why price fell.

The drop in the street price for most illegal drugs was not caused solely by a decrease in demand for those drugs.
Correct: The plan to decrease the imports from Gordenia could have worked but prices still went down because of low demand.

I think C states that the supply of local drugs did not increase. Furthermore, the supply of drug from foreigner sources reduced ==> Total supply of drug decreased at that time.

Choice C: Domestic production of illegal drugs did not increase during that time period

Prices would not go down.....provided domestic production did not increase. Makes perfect sense to me.
Basically they eay that if the policy was successful, prices shoud have gone down becauce foreign supply is reduced...provided local supply did not increase. Whats wring with that ?

Hi Ivan91
You're correct. If domestic production did not increase (it means supply will reduce) ==> Prices would not go down. There's no problem with the logic: supply reduces, prices do not reduce.

But, please read the last sentence one more time

"If the plan had been successful, the street price for most illegal drugs in the country’s major cities would not have dropped as it did over the past two years"

What does it mean? Please see the underlined portion. "as it did over the past two years" means the prices dropped actually.
It means you need to find the answer that explains why the supply reduced, but the prices also reduced (normally, prices should not reduce).

That's why I say Veritas CR questions are difficult because of the wording, not the logic.

Hope it helps.

Regards.

Hi pqhai,

I am not convinced with the OA
Premise: Country B stopped illegal drug entry from Country G.
Plan was successful but prices of most most illegal drugs dropped, which ideally should not have been the case as reduced supply = increased prices

A. The street price of some illegal drugs increased substantially during that time period --> This makes sense. Supply from G has reduced, but prices of few drugs have increased substantially. These drugs are the ones used by most ppl.
B. There was a major decrease in the supply of illegal drugs during that time period --> if there was major decrease, prices cannot go down. Hence not valid.
C. Domestic production of illegal drugs did not increase during that time period --> the street price for most illegal drugs would not have dropped unless domestic production had increased. But the opposite is stated here. Hence not valid
D. The street price of some illegal drugs did not drop during that time period. --> This one also makes sense. As most decreased, some did not. Like A these were the ones used by most people.
E. The drop in the street price for most illegal drugs was not caused solely by a decrease in demand for those drugs.--> We are saying drop was not because of decrease in demand. So if demand didn't decrease, how did prices go down ? Does not make sense

C or E

to select C one should assume that increasing production will increase supply in domestic market

E says directly that demand did not increase

E is better

I understand how E seems to be an appropriate choice, but at the same time I'm not able to eliminate C also

Hi Viren

The stimulus tells us that "the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs" from the neighbouring country, which was the major supplier of illegal drugs. Assuming that the plan was successful, it would have resulted in a reduction in the inflow of illegal drugs from Gordenia to Bedenia, causing a reduction in the supply. Let this reduction by x kg/year.

Now, for the price on the streets to drop, we can infer that overall supply must increase. For this, it is not sufficient for the domestic production of illegal drugs to merely increase - it must increase by more than x. While in some questions this option may work as the correct answer, here we have answer option (E) which is complete in all respects. Hence, option (E) is the better option.

Hope this clarifies.

Meaning Analysis : There were illegal imports of drugs into B from G, and to combat this, B passed a law to prevent this import. However, the argument states that the price of those drugs dropped, implying that the plan of banning was unsuccessful.

The sentence after "As long as" should provide additional support or a necessary condition which has to be true, for the argument to keep up its claim of the plan being unsuccessful.

This could be done in 2 ways -

1. Yes, the plan was unsuccessful because the street price of drugs dropped, and The internal supply of drugs did not increase more than the amount of supply banned coming from Gordenia
2. Yes, the plan was unsuccessful because the street price of drugs dropped, and the demand for those drugs in the city of Bedania did not drop substantially

A. The street price of some illegal drugs increased substantially during that time period - If street price of drugs increased after the ban, then why does the passage say that the price dropped? This goes against what the passage says. Incorrect.
B. There was a major decrease in the supply of illegal drugs during that time period - When supply decreases(with no change in demand), the price of a commodity goes up. Goes against the passage again. Incorrect.
C. Domestic production of illegal drugs did not increase during that time period - Tricky one to eliminate. This is exactly was Point (1) states, except that it does not say anything about whats written in bold in (1). Domestic production can increase to 3 levels - (i) - A level which is less than the imports banned, in which case the prices will increase. (ii) A level which is equal to imports banned - In that case, there will be neither an increase nor a decrease in prices. (iii) A level will which is more than the imports banned - This will surely decrease prices. Although, this is not mentioned. - Incorrect
D. The street price of some illegal drugs did not drop during that time period - Even if prices of some drugs dropped, is it necessarily supporting the asserting that the plan was unsuccessful? - Incorrect
E. The drop in the street price for most illegal drugs was not caused solely by a decrease in demand for those drugs. - Correct. As mentioned in point (2)

VeritasKarishma

I was confused b/w C & E
can you pls explain how E is better

A. The street price of some illegal drugs increased substantially during that time period.
It doesn't make much sense it doesn't support the matter at hand

B. There was a major decrease in the supply of illegal drugs during that time period
No requirement increase in drugs


C. Domestic production of illegal drugs did not increase during that time period
Yes this can be a possiblity then if this has increased the plan was never scucessful i don't know how to eleminate this somebody do command

D. The street price of some illegal drugs did not drop during that time period.
We are not concerned about other drugs

E. The drop in the street price for most illegal drugs was not caused solely by a decrease in demand for those drugs.
This was the real reason even during peak demand the drug had dropped
Hence IMO E

I too have similar confusion...Requesting KarishmaB MartyMurray to pitch in...

Posted from my mobile device

Do you mean to say that it should not depend solely on the demand supply mechanism at all as despite the less supply , the prices dropped ? Hence there has to be some other cause. Is my understanding correct ?
Requesting your view KarishmaB pqhai

Hi Ivan91
You're correct. If domestic production did not increase (it means supply will reduce) ==> Prices would not go down. There's no problem with the logic: supply reduces, prices do not reduce.

But, please read the last sentence one more time

"If the plan had been successful, the street price for most illegal drugs in the country’s major cities would not have dropped as it did over the past two years"

What does it mean? Please see the underlined portion. "as it did over the past two years" means the prices dropped actually.
It means you need to find the answer that explains why the supply reduced, but the prices also reduced (normally, prices should not reduce).

That's why I say Veritas CR questions are difficult because of the wording, not the logic.

Hope it helps.

Regards.

Posted from my mobile device­

Could someone please explain clearly why is c incorrect?

Posted from my mobile device

­
I understand the confusion around (C) but forget the options first and try to answer on your own.

If the plan had been successful, the street price for most illegal drugs in the country’s major cities would not have dropped as it did over the past two years, as long as _______ 
I would say, "... as long as people are still using drugs" (essentially what (E) says)

Why? There is a big drop. The sentence says that if the plan had been successful, then nothing can explain this big drop as long as people are still taking drugs. So the point is that no domestic production increase, nothing can explain it. 

Look, suppliers will always manage supply to ensure that the price doesn't tank. An increase in domestic production can't account for a big decrease in prices. What can cause a huge dip in the prices? If demand goes away. That is why (E) is correct. 

The answer lies in the words and the intent of the question maker.
And if the question is troubling you too much, move on. It isn't an official question.
 ­