The GRANT Research Institute recently published

What is the OA? I presume it is D because the passage focuses on the "substantially decrease the revenue or operations of illegal drug traffickers." Proponents of the legalization will argue that people will no longer buy from drug deals thus shrinking their operation.

Kudos?

Good explanation.I was able to narrow DOWN to A And E but I was thinking whether other countries will be in scope of passage.

I agree with souvik101990.

It is no where mention that the drug is legal in other states. Even if it were, To support A as a weakener we would have to assume that no illegal drug dealer who can make a positive difference to the total drug quantity illegal traded would participate in the drug trade from Fruitland to other states.


sid

GRANT Research : -

Legalising dullnic [ In Fruitland ] ====> [ Will Not decreasee revenue or operation ] of illegal drug traffickers.

Or We can say that Legalising dullnic [ In Fruitland ] will result in either -

1. Increase in revenue of illegal drug traffickers.
2. Constant revenue of illegal drug traffickers.

Report : -

Legalising dullnic [ In Fruitland ] will result in ====> Higher Quality and Lower Cost than Illegal drug.
Out of total sales of dullnic - Fruitland contributes a very small percentage of total sales.

Which of the following best completes the passage?

A. Dullnic legally grown in Fruitland will be sold in other states in the region.

If illegal drug is legalised and it is of better quality and lower price rational consumers will try to acquire legal drugs only.

If illegal drug is not consumed by the people of Fruitland ( Which consumes a small percentage of Dullnic now - which is expected to drop further if the drug is legalised and is available at a cheaper price and better quality ) then where will illegal trafickers sell their product ?

Definitely they will try to smuggle the Illegal drug to other / adjoining states.

B. Once dullnic is legalized, people will try to legalize other drugs that are currently illegally trafficked. - Out of Scope.

C. Other research institutes have also studied this issue and come to different conclusions. - Vague.

D. If it becomes legal to grow dullnic, people will stop buying dullnic from dealers.

If people don't buy from illegal dealer then they will be buying it from the legal dealers , it is quite normal.

E. Illegal drug traffickers will be able to legally grow dullnic within Fruitland’s borders. - True within fruitland Illegal trafficers can grow dullnic drug then how can they achieve the desired level of revenue ( Constant / Increase in Revenue ).



The catchpoint to my opinion is lower contribution of Sales in fruitland ( as per report ) vs Same level of Revenue / Increase in Revenue by Illegal Traffickers.

In order to maintain same level of revenue the Illegal traffickers will have to maintain the same level of Exports ( Despite change in Home Rules - Legalizing the illegal drug ) like earlier.

This further suggests that the illegal traffickers were involved in exporting maximum part of the illegal dug Dullnic since market for the said drug is very small in its home state and they have to rely on export of the same to other states ( hence change in regulations in home state results in no adverse effects on the Revenue of Illegal Drug Traffickers)

IMO (A) for the said reasons...

This is a third rate question. Very bad question. I hope no one gets such a silly question on the real exam day.
Essence of the argument:- There are people (proponents) who want DULLNIC drug to become legal and there is Grant institute who say it's useless to legalise it.

Proper deconstruction of the argument
Premise 1) Grant institute say legal DULLNIC will be of higher quality and less price.
Premise 2) But DULLNIC sales are very low in FRUITLAND
Conclusion) So, even if DULLNIC is legalised in FRUITLAND, the revenue of illegal drug Mafia's will not decrease. (because they already get next to nothing by selling DULLNIC in FRUITLAND)

So we have to weaken/destroy the conclusion that legalising DULLNIC will not affect Mafia's profit.
We have to show that if DULLNIC is legalised Illegal Mafia's profit will be adversely affected.

A. Dullnic legally grown in Fruitland will be sold in other states in the region.
Correct:- Dullnic from FRUITLAND will be sold to other cities. May be some of these other cities contribute to a large profit to the drug mafia. Once people of these other cities can buy high quality and cheaper DULLNIC legally, then they will not go to the mafia and thus Mafia's profit will decrease drastically.

B. Once dullnic is legalized, people will try to legalize other drugs that are currently illegally trafficked.
Wrong:- Out of scope. The issue we have is Dullnic and Mafia's profit. Other drugs have nothing to do with it.

C. Other research institutes have also studied this issue and come to different conclusions.
Wrong:-No mention of other institutes in question stem. Inference cannot be drawn about what other institute.

D. If it becomes legal to grow dullnic, people will stop buying dullnic from dealers.
Right:- Even this option its right . People still buy drugs from Mafia in DULLNIC. No matter how less profit Mafia makes from these sales-It is still profit. Once people stop buying from Mafia definitely its business will suffer. It will be a small suffering but still .


E. Illegal drug traffickers will be able to legally grow dullnic within Fruitland’s borders.
Wrong:- Even if they illegal drug mafia grows dullinic, why would people buy from them when people can buy high quality and cheaper dullinic LEGALLY. why take the risk to go to dangerous drug traffickers , pay more and get **** product in return.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE TWO CORRECT ANSWERS. OPTION A IS STRONG BUT NEEDS ASSUMPTION TO WORK. OPTION D IS ALSO RIGHT BUT IS WEAKER.

NOT A GOOD QUESTION

The GRANT Research Institute recently published a report saying that legalizing the illegal drug dullnic in the state of Fruitland would not substantially decrease the revenue or operations of illegal drug traffickers. In the report, GRANT stated that even though legal dullnic would be of a higher quality and lower cost than illegal dullnic, sales of dullnic within Fruitland accounted for a small percentage of overall dullnic sales. Proponents of dullnic legalization point out that the GRANT Institute’s logic is flawed because it fails to take into account that ___________________.

Which of the following best completes the passage?
A. Dullnic legally grown in Fruitland will be sold in other states in the region.

B. Once dullnic is legalized, people will try to legalize other drugs that are currently illegally trafficked.

C. Other research institutes have also studied this issue and come to different conclusions.

D. If it becomes legal to grow dullnic, people will stop buying dullnic from dealers.

E. Illegal drug traffickers will be able to legally grow dullnic within Fruitland’s borders.

Hi
I have my doubts on the answer A.

1. The premise says "even though legal dullnic would be of a higher quality and lower cost than illegal dullnic, sales of dullnic within Fruitland accounted for a small percentage of overall dullnic sales".
Answer choice A repeats the same thing. So how does it weaken the argument?


2. The premise says "legalizing the illegal drug dullnic in the state of Fruitland" which means growing, consumption and sale-purchase of dullnic has been legalized only in the state of fruitland. We have no information of other states, if it is legal or illegal there. So how can we say that sale of dullnic to other states would increase or decrease in the revenues of traffickers?? The high quality may increase the demand in other states and cheap prices may decrease the revenue or the combined effect may have no impact on the revenue.

Please help!

Posted from my mobile device

I knew there was no mention of other states but still A is the right answer. I guess I should just move on?

A. Dullnic legally grown in Fruitland will be sold in other states in the region.
correctly points out the flaw in the reasoning by stating the reason behind statement about why illegal drug traffickers will not reduce

B. Once dullnic is legalized, people will try to legalize other drugs that are currently illegally trafficked.
Out of scope

C. Other research institutes have also studied this issue and come to different conclusions.
Out of scope

D. If it becomes legal to grow dullnic, people will stop buying dullnic from dealers.
this is general statement which if true must reduce dealers profit which is not the case

E. Illegal drug traffickers will be able to legally grow dullnic within Fruitland’s borders.[/quote]
where traffickers grow the drug is out of scope

KyleWiddison hello expert, I was torn with A and D, but I don’t understand well what you said. Could you explain further on D? Much thanks.
This is my thought: the research institute says legalizing drug dullnic would not substantially decrease the revenue or operations of illegal drug traffickers. To weaken it, we should say legalizing can decrease operations of illegal drug traffickers. D says people will stop buying dullnic from dealers after legalization, and I think this means decrease operations of illegal drug traffickers. So why D is wrong?
While A says will be sold in other states in the region, but we donor know whether drug dullnic is legal in other states. If it is illegal in other states, then will not decrease operations of illegal drug traffickers. So I think D should be better than A.