It is currently 21 Nov 2017, 11:03

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
MBA Section Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4686

Kudos [?]: 17656 [1], given: 1986

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2015, 00:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

29% (01:29) correct 71% (01:49) wrong based on 594 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities. Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana. However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

Which of the following, if true, explains how the drug legislation could have been successful despite the recent data?

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Kudos [?]: 17656 [1], given: 1986

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Posts: 592

Kudos [?]: 175 [1], given: 45

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2017, 11:45
1
This post received
KUDOS
Bunuel wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities. Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana. However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

Which of the following, if true, explains how the drug legislation could have been successful despite the recent data?

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.


Premise: Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities.
Premise: Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana.
Conclusion: However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

The question asks about how to strengthen that how the legislation has been successful.

Linkage: In order to strengthen the conclusion, we need to show that illegal drug use has come down via this legislation. We have paradox in the conclusion that illegal drug hasn't come down then in order to strengthen we need to show drug usage has gone up but legally then legislation has been successful..

Only C capture the essence.

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana...irrelevant.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.....irrelevant.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented - Correct...

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.....irrelevant.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.....irrelevant.

Kudos [?]: 175 [1], given: 45

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 37

Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2017, 00:43
msk0657 wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities. Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana. However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

Which of the following, if true, explains how the drug legislation could have been successful despite the recent data?

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.


Premise: Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities.
Premise: Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana.
Conclusion: However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

The question asks about how to strengthen that how the legislation has been successful.

Linkage: In order to strengthen the conclusion, we need to show that illegal drug use has come down via this legislation. We have paradox in the conclusion that illegal drug hasn't come down then in order to strengthen we need to show drug usage has gone up but legally then legislation has been successful..

Only C capture the essence.

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana...irrelevant.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.....irrelevant.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented - Correct...

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.....irrelevant.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.....irrelevant.



If this " to show drug usage has gone up but legally" strengthens the argument, there is no option that talks about this. Option C says the illegal drug use has dropped sharply. Does this imply that drug usage must have gone up legally ?

The conclusion says illegal drug use has risen and the option says just the opposite but it doesn't give any reasoning.

Can you please explain the reasoning that has been used in the question in order to obtain the conclusion from the premise? and then explain how option C fits in based on what is asked?

Thank you in advance!

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 37

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 May 2017
Posts: 161

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 7

Concentration: Finance, Accounting
WE: Programming (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2017, 01:10
Premise:
However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

But Isn't C stand against the given premise. Its just disproving the fact given in the argument.

Aren't we supposed to find a loop or a gap in the argument to answer the question rather than just disproving the premise.
_________________

If you like the post, please award me Kudos!! It motivates me

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 7

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 16 Apr 2017
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 46 [1], given: 79

Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2017, 02:58
1
This post received
KUDOS
Leo8 wrote:
Premise:
However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

But Isn't C stand against the given premise. Its just disproving the fact given in the argument.

Aren't we supposed to find a loop or a gap in the argument to answer the question rather than just disproving the premise.

No the premise says:
No major decrese in illegal drugs' use occured LAST YEAR and that too in MAJOR CITIES.

Wheras answer choice says:
The illegal drugs' use in CITIES declined sharpley immedietly following the legislation, which was passed TWO years ago.

Hence you see there is no such disproval of premise.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
_________________

KUDOS please, if you like the post or if it helps :-)

Kudos [?]: 46 [1], given: 79

Director
Director
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Posts: 592

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 45

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2017, 07:09
Chef wrote:


If this " to show drug usage has gone up but legally" strengthens the argument, there is no option that talks about this. Option C says the illegal drug use has dropped sharply. Does this imply that drug usage must have gone up legally ?

The conclusion says illegal drug use has risen and the option says just the opposite but it doesn't give any reasoning.

Can you please explain the reasoning that has been used in the question in order to obtain the conclusion from the premise? and then explain how option C fits in based on what is asked?

Thank you in advance!


Hi...

Conclusion : However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period..

Observe that we two have contrasting points. We have final conclusion statement starting with drug use has gone up slightly in that period. We need to strengthen this point. Here it only mentioned about drug use has gone that means there is nothing mentioned about illegally. If legislation is passed then it should be only legal. Then the drug is available in the market and everyone can buy. This itself shows that illegal has come down.

Hope this helps.

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 45

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1107

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 1056

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2017, 13:25
see? this is one of rare questions that test takers must use the stem to find the answer. Otherwise, everybody will be tricked, and think that the question is just a normal explanation question.

Normally, there are types of question that the test takers do not need to read and pay attention to the stem. Those types are: assumption, strengthen, weaken, explanation, boldface.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 1056

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jun 2017
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 33

Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 04:47
msk0657 wrote:
Bunuel wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities. Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana. However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

Which of the following, if true, explains how the drug legislation could have been successful despite the recent data?

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.


Premise: Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities.
Premise: Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana.
Conclusion: However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

The question asks about how to strengthen that how the legislation has been successful.

Linkage: In order to strengthen the conclusion, we need to show that illegal drug use has come down via this legislation. We have paradox in the conclusion that illegal drug hasn't come down then in order to strengthen we need to show drug usage has gone up but legally then legislation has been successful..

Only C capture the essence.

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana...irrelevant.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.....irrelevant.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented - Correct...

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.....irrelevant.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.....irrelevant.



Not able to understand the contradicting statements - in the premise it's mentioned - " no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities"
whereas correct answer choice mentions - Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 33

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Feb 2017
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2017, 02:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
souvik101990 wrote:
Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities. Primarily, the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia, a major producer of marijuana. However, there has been no major decrease in illegal drug use over the past year in the country’s major cities; in fact, drug use has gone up slightly in that period.

Which of the following, if true, explains how the drug legislation could have been successful despite the recent data?

A. Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana.

B. Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities.

C. Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented

D. Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.

E. Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.



Marijuana is the bone of contention as the major drug exporting country is Gordenia which exports marijuana as its major product. So the legislation will be successful in curtailing the use of drugs if it primarily concentrated on marijuana. So A is dropped.

B is out of scope as the legislation and argument is based on the drug use in major cities.

D is again out of scope
E is out of scope.


Now we need to look at the argument carefully. The legislation was implemented two years ago and the drug use has increased only in the past one year. Which means the legislation was successful for a year or soon after its implementation. So C is the apt choice.

Also the Question uses "COULD" and not "IS"...

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Oct 2016
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2017, 20:28
IMO A

Although the legislation was successful in reducing the illegal marijuana smuggled to Bedenia from Gordenia, the proliferation of new drugs in Bodenia might have exacerbated the drug use.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Re: Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark   [#permalink] 07 Sep 2017, 20:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Two years ago officials in Bedenia implemented landmark

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.