Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislat

I do agree with OP, while A and C are the most legitimate choices, I don't see why I'd go with C.

I don't agree with dheeraj24's reasoning. If we're making the distinction between cities and major cities, the stem says "Two years ago, officials in Bedenia implemented landmark drug legislation to combat an explosion of illegal drug use in the country’s major cities". While the legislation happened to reduce usage in cities, it still did not fulfil it's goal of reducing usage in "major cities".

Hi Stoneshwar,

You have well followed the premises. The only reason you have to go with option C is that the question asks
"Which of the following, if true, explains how the drug legislation could have been successful despite the recent data?"
This is a type of "Implementing a Plan" type CR question.
Here the plan was to reduce the illegal drugs .For this plan to be successful, the correct argument should say that "illegal drug use reduced/dropped significantly after implementing the plan. Only Option C does that.
Hope this reasoning helps .

IMO, C is a better choice than A in this question because of the keywords "could have been successful despite recent data" in the question stem. This would indicate that recent data does not fully reflect whether it was successful at one point. It's looking for something that shows it actually did accomplish what it was meant to do...even if it didn't last.

Answer choice A doesn't explain how the plan was ever successful. It only explains why it wasn't. Marijuana usage isn't really the problem. It's part of the larger issue at hand, which is illegal drug usage.

The answer Should be C.
As per the premise the legislation was brought into effect two years ago. And Option C sates that there was a dramatic decrease in illegal drug use. This information makes the plan successful.
The premise further states that over the last year there has been no decrease in illegal drug use. So it is reasonable to infer that some other factor has been responsible for rise in drug use.

the legislation created new controls for preventing the entry of illegal drugs from the neighboring country of Gordenia- So in order for the legislation to be successful i.e the answer has to strengthen the outcome that drug entry was decreased and doesn't need to focus on the total increase or decrease in drug rate. A doesn't provide an alternate solution to the cause of increase in the drug rate but doesnt provide anything solid to strengthen the success of the legislation
Still i feel A is a better answer than C.

C is better. A states that most of the drugs were not marijuana.However the ban wa on all illegal drugs and not only a marijuana. Note that a major "marijuana producer" is a modifier that modifies gordenia. Nowhere is it mentioned that marijuana was banned. So c strengthens the conclusion

Which of the following, if true, explains how the drug legislation could have been successful despite the recent data?
The question means that Even " 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 one still show that the legislation was successful.

Choice A "Most of the drug problems in Bedenia’s major cities involve drugs other than marijuana." is incorrect since other drugs were used replaced to marijuana. It means that the legislation just prevent using marijuana but other drugs are used more.

Choice C is correct because "Immediately after the legislation was implemented, Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply" It means the legislation is successful - and the rest of the year, It could have others reasons leading to the increase using of illegal drugs.

It is stated in the argument that "Gordenia" is a major producer of "marijuana" but that does not indicate other drugs are not produced.Besides the drug legislation has been implemented to combat illegal drug use which includes all drugs. Hence "A" does not explain why the problem has not been curbed. Even if the drug problems in "Bedenia" includes other drugs the use should have reduced after the implementation of the legislation.

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..............we are concerned with all the drugs. not one more than other. This indicates no success.

(B)Most illegal drug use in Bedenia occurs outside of the country’s major cities...................Out of scope. We are concerned only major cities here

(C)Illegal drug use in cities dropped sharply immediately after the legislation was implemented..........This indicates some success.

(D)Importation of marijuana decreased from countries other than Gordenia.............Does not relate to the legislation success.

(E)Visits to drug treatment centers in the country’s major cities decreased dramatically following the legislation.............visits decreses does not mean problems are less, it can mean people who got addicted do not want to get rid of it as well.

Hello Aryama,

Thanks for explanation.
I have a query. What about option E ? Option E in a way supports drug legislation, on what grounds did we eliminate option E. i was stuck between C & E.

Thanks
Amaresh

Please read the answer to your query very well explained here:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/two-years-ag ... l#p1706778

If I am not visiting a doctor, that doesn't mean I am well. May be I don't want to visit anymore. Or I am addicted now.

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!

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

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.