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"...