GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Oct 2019, 09:33

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 133
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 13 Jan 2014, 03:10
2
23
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

23% (01:54) correct 77% (01:57) wrong based on 802 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime.
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol.
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime.
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable.
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it.

Originally posted by Vineetk on 04 Dec 2012, 11:17.
Last edited by WaterFlowsUp on 13 Jan 2014, 03:10, edited 1 time in total.
SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2273
Location: New York, NY
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2012, 10:48
3
2
Jp27 wrote:
plumber250 wrote:
Hi,

I agree with Nelz.

'C' provides a DIFFERENT reason for not banning Cannabis. So whilst it would provide support to an overall movement to not ban Cannabis, it says nothing about the actual argument being made in the question that both Alcohol and Cannabis have the same effects so should be treated the same.

A tricky one...

James

Hello James,

One doubt, Isnt A a restatement of a premise? the 3 line in the argument says " But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands" so we already know OH indirectly causes crimes, then how can Option A strengthen the Argument?

Cheers

Hi Jp27,

Here's the difference:

The passage merely SUGGESTS that alcohol CAN lead to abuse:

"But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands"

Answer choice (A) actually tells you to consider the possibility that that statement is ACTUALLY true.

So the difference is the passage only suggested that it COULD be true. Whereas (A) suggested that it ACTUALLY IS true.

Remember the question: "Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?"

Clearly, we don't know that (A) is true based on the passage. But we are asked to consider - WHAT IF (A) were ACTUALLY true.

If we knew for a fact that alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime - then this supporting point is no longer just a guess. There is actual backing to this statement. That's one way to SUPPORT the argument above.

Hope that helps.

Here's the original question along with a video explanation: http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/1314
##### General Discussion
VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1103
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2012, 12:11
2
Vineetk wrote:
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime.
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol.
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime.
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable.
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it.

I'm not so sure of the OA. It is just repeating what is already given in the argument. I think C would make a better answer choice.
_________________
Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 133
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2012, 21:53
1
MacFauz wrote:
Vineetk wrote:
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime.
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol.
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime.
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable.
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it.

I'm not so sure of the OA. It is just repeating what is already given in the argument. I think C would make a better answer choice.

Even I picked C. But the explanation for C not being the right answer is that it fails to provide any reason why regulation of marijuana does not make sense.. A is correct answer because argument states that regulation of alcohol makes no sense and Choice A provides the same effect as marijuana.
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 05 Dec 2012, 05:13
2
1
OA is right. The problem here is there is an inconsistent law on one side we have

Marijuana >> is related to crime

Alcohol >>> could lead to crime but no law for this ( if you add A to this then it fills a gap)

The main question to answer is, why the law on marijuana should be removed and why this law doesn't make sense? only A does that, cos its providing an additional assumption, which supports and answers the question. (if you go by their framework its method number 2 to strengthen an argument)
I would also think of this question as, it strengthens one side and weakens the other...

If you look carefully at C, it doesn't answer the question.

Originally posted by nelz007 on 04 Dec 2012, 22:41.
Last edited by nelz007 on 05 Dec 2012, 05:13, edited 2 times in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 250
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Dec 2012, 04:37
1
Hi,

I agree with Nelz.

'C' provides a DIFFERENT reason for not banning Cannabis. So whilst it would provide support to an overall movement to not ban Cannabis, it says nothing about the actual argument being made in the question that both Alcohol and Cannabis have the same effects so should be treated the same.

A tricky one...

James
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 129
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 08 Dec 2012, 21:19
3
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime

(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol

(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime

(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable

(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it

OA after discussion..
_________________
If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Originally posted by BukrsGmat on 06 Dec 2012, 20:55.
Last edited by BukrsGmat on 08 Dec 2012, 21:19, edited 2 times in total.
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 211
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2012, 22:44
sujit2k7 wrote:
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime

(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol

(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime

(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable

(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it

OA after discussion..

Hi sujit2k7.. Yes OA is very debatable, none seems OK to me... My reasons are...

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime
This is already stated in the premise " But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence "

(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol
This cannot be the answer, as we are discussing about the ill effect. the argument says : if alcohol can lead to abuse and violence and still be in the market, then marijuana also can also be. So benefits are out of scope, IMO.

(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime
This also we know from the argument, 1st and 2nd line of the argument says this...

(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable
The argument talks about whether the Marijuana regulation should be repealed or not, ability to enforce it is a subject of different argument.

(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it
The argument already says "alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands"

If I were forced to pick one then I would go with A,which seems closest to the argument.

Cheers
Manager
Status: Never ever give up on yourself.Period.
Joined: 23 Aug 2012
Posts: 131
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
GMAT 1: 570 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V33
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2012, 23:18
IMO B has to be the answer.
Cause author talks about violence caused by both Alcohol and Marijuana..only if we weigh benefits of both these things, we can decide whether to regulate or not. As both causes violence , marijuana has more benefits (B) and alcohol is not banned, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed(conclusion).
_________________
Don't give up on yourself ever. Period.
Beat it, no one wants to be defeated (My journey from 570 to 690) : http://gmatclub.com/forum/beat-it-no-one-wants-to-be-defeated-journey-570-to-149968.html
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 211
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2012, 04:18
plumber250 wrote:
Hi,

I agree with Nelz.

'C' provides a DIFFERENT reason for not banning Cannabis. So whilst it would provide support to an overall movement to not ban Cannabis, it says nothing about the actual argument being made in the question that both Alcohol and Cannabis have the same effects so should be treated the same.

A tricky one...

James

Hello James,

One doubt, Isnt A a restatement of a premise? the 3 line in the argument says " But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands" so we already know OH indirectly causes crimes, then how can Option A strengthen the Argument?

Cheers
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 129
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2012, 21:18
Confused between C and A. Need help
_________________
If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Dec 2012, 23:35
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime

The argument says it can lead to this statement fills a gap.The problem here is the inconsistency treatment, you have a set of rules for cannabis and no rules for the other side. The question is why this law doesn't make sense and should be repealed? only when we justify something about alcohol, it fills a gap.

(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime

There are publications present which say that marijuana causes crime. This statement is also challenging a fact highlighted in red. it does provide support for marijuana but doesn't answer the challenge question, these question types are tricky "Most support" there can be a weak strengthener and a stronger one...

the-purpose-of-regulation-of-cannabis-143599.html
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 129
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2012, 00:37
nelz007 wrote:
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime

The argument says it can lead to this statement fills a gap.The problem here is the inconsistency treatment, you have a set of rules for cannabis and no rules for the other side. The question is why this law doesn't make sense and should be repealed? only when we justify something about alcohol, it fills a gap.

(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime

There are publications present which say that marijuana causes crime. This statement is also challenging a fact highlighted in red. it does provide support for marijuana but doesn't answer the challenge question, these question types are tricky "Most support" there can be a weak strengthener and a stronger one...

the-purpose-of-regulation-of-cannabis-143599.html

Thnkx @nelz007 for your reply.... Sry I do not fully agree with you..
C) As per the publications they tried to relate marijuana with crime. But no where it is written that marijuana causes crime..
Now as per my understanding A) tells Alcohol causes crime but it does not mean marijuana does not cause the crime(as previous publications always tried to prove)..so to attack the conclusion that regulation need to be repealed, I have to give a reason the regulation was not fruitful..... Please correct my understanding
_________________
If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2012, 01:43
sujit2k7 wrote:

Thnkx @nelz007 for your reply.... Sry I do not fully agree with you..
C) As per the publications they tried to relate marijuana with crime. But no where it is written that marijuana causes crime..
Now as per my understanding A) tells Alcohol causes crime but it does not mean marijuana does not cause the crime(as previous publications always tried to prove)..so to attack the conclusion that regulation need to be repealed, I have to give a reason the regulation was not fruitful..... Please correct my understanding

The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes.Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime]. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous.[b] Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

it is mentioned over there (red) that it was done to reduce crime. sry, highlighted the wrong part earlier.

The situation here is there is a regulation so some sort of enforcement on cannabis and this regulation doesn't make sense, the main premise for this (blue). Now alcohol can lead to crime no proof yet, we need something that would justify that alcohol does lead to crime. A does exactly that and supports the argument saying there is an inconsistent treatment.
SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2273
Location: New York, NY
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2012, 10:42
2
1
nelz007 - great to see a GMATPill student explain questions to others - that's a sign of true understanding. Keep it up!

Someone suggested that (A) merely repeats what is said in the passage. Well, there is a slight (and important) difference.

Here's the difference:

The passage merely SUGGESTS that alcohol CAN lead to abuse:

"But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands"

Answer choice (A) actually tells you to consider the possibility that that statement is ACTUALLY true.

So the difference is the passage only suggested that it COULD be true. Whereas (A) suggested that it ACTUALLY IS true.

Remember the question: "Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?"

Clearly, we don't know that (A) is true based on the passage. But we are asked to consider - WHAT IF (A) were ACTUALLY true.

Hope that helps.

Here's the original question along with a video explanation: http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/1314
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 211
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2012, 12:27
gmatpill wrote:
Jp27 wrote:
plumber250 wrote:
Hi,

I agree with Nelz.

'C' provides a DIFFERENT reason for not banning Cannabis. So whilst it would provide support to an overall movement to not ban Cannabis, it says nothing about the actual argument being made in the question that both Alcohol and Cannabis have the same effects so should be treated the same.

A tricky one...

James

Hello James,

One doubt, Isnt A a restatement of a premise? the 3 line in the argument says " But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands" so we already know OH indirectly causes crimes, then how can Option A strengthen the Argument?

Cheers

Hi Jp27,

Here's the difference:

The passage merely SUGGESTS that alcohol CAN lead to abuse:

"But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands"

Answer choice (A) actually tells you to consider the possibility that that statement is ACTUALLY true.

So the difference is the passage only suggested that it COULD be true. Whereas (A) suggested that it ACTUALLY IS true.

Remember the question: "Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?"

Clearly, we don't know that (A) is true based on the passage. But we are asked to consider - WHAT IF (A) were ACTUALLY true.

If we knew for a fact that alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime - then this supporting point is no longer just a guess. There is actual backing to this statement. That's one way to SUPPORT the argument above.

Hope that helps.

Here's the original question along with a video explanation: http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/1314

yes that helps. Very subtle diff, A makes sense now. Good Q.

Cheers
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 188
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2012, 21:16
Thanks Zeke! with the video explanation open to public it should be crystal clear if any doubts still remain.

gmatpill wrote:
Here's the original question along with a video explanation: http://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/1314
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2012
Posts: 69
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2013, 11:48
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime - The argument is about Marijuana
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol - We are not comparing benefits of A vs B
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime - Correct
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable - This is out of context
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it - Out of context

The argument talks about a section of the society opposing Marijuana. The support for this argument comes from how Alcohol can also lead to problems if it is in wrong hands. I guess the answer would be something which tells us that Marijuana by itself cannot cause any change in behavior, especially making one inclined towards violence. Hence C.
Manager
Status: Got Bling! Joined Phd Finance at IIML
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 72
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: iim-bangalore - Class of 1994
GMAT 1: 750 Q59 V43
GPA: 3.12
WE: Research (Investment Banking)
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2013, 23:59
Vineetk wrote:
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime.
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol.
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime.
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable.
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it.

Straigthtforward
Manager
Status: Got Bling! Joined Phd Finance at IIML
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 72
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: iim-bangalore - Class of 1994
GMAT 1: 750 Q59 V43
GPA: 3.12
WE: Research (Investment Banking)
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2013, 00:00
Vineetk wrote:
The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to restrict the growth in the number of people consuming a "habit-forming drug" and to lower the incidence of violent crimes. Several large newspaper publications and organizations ran campaigns in the 1930s that demonized marijuana and emphasized a connection between marijuana and crime. But even alcohol can lead to abuse and violence if in the wrong hands; yet everyone today would agree that prohibiting alcohol, a product so ingrained in people's social life today, would be preposterous. Hence, regulation of marijuana makes no sense and should be repealed.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the argument above?

(A) Alcohol has been known to cause violence and crime.
(B) The benefits of marijuana outweigh those of alcohol.
(C) The regulation of marijuana does not deter the sort of activity known to result in violent crime.
(D) The regulation of marijuana is not enforceable.
(E) Alcohol is readily available to anyone who wants to obtain it.

Straigthtforward
Re: The purpose of regulation of Cannabis (marijuana) was to   [#permalink] 09 Jul 2013, 00:00

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 28 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by