Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state

Question

Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal.

Attorney General: Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.

The Attorney General uses which of the following techniques in responding to the marijuana advocate?

(A) citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false

(B) pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises

(C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect

(D) arguing that the same assumption could be used to support an opposing conclusion

(E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantages

Show Spoiler

For a discussion of Dialogue Structure Questions, as well as a full explanation to this question, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-cr-d ... questions/

Mike

Show Answer

Official Answer

E

benguy · Accepted Answer

Marijuana advocate : If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal. Attorney General : Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein. The Attorney General uses which of the following techniques in responding to the marijuana advocate? the argument is based on the assumption that if drug sales is legal, tax revenue will increase and cost of fighting crime will be saved. The conclusion, therefore, is that the gain will be tremendous (A) citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false Attorney General does not give any evidence that the gain will not be tremendous as in the conclusion. in face he doubts that the cost of crime will increase instead (B) pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises Attorney General does not point out the flaw in the relationship between the premises and the conclusion (C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect Attorney General does not specifically questions the causal relationship in the argument (D) arguing that the same assumption could be used to support an opposing conclusion no opposing conclusion has been made in the Attorney General's argument (E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantages correct. by analogy evidence in other countries, Attorney General argues that even though the gain could be tremendous, the cost caused by crime due to legalizing the drug sales might outweigh the gains For a discussion of Dialogue Structure Questions, as well as a full explanation to this question, see: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-cr-di ... questions/ Mike :-)

gauravkaushik8591 · Answer

Marijuana advocate: Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish

Attorney General: diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.

Isn't it essentially doing what's mentioned in option D?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear gauravkaushik8591 , I'm happy to respond. :-)

The marijuana advocate assumes that, when pot is legal, the pot-related crimes will stop. The attorney general assumes the opposite: that when pot is legal, the criminal culture supporting pot will continue. Those two do not have the same assumption. They have 100% polar opposite assumptions. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

ronr34 · Answer

Hi Mike. This is a toughie

As I see it, the assumption would be: pot is legal. The conclusions that are made are opposing... I chose D too... Can you elaborate a little more?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear ronr34 I'm happy to respond. :-)

This is tricky. The marijuana advocate begins " If marijuana were legalized in this state ..." That's NOT an assumption. GMAT assumptions are unstated . This is a hypothetical prediction, and the marijuana advocate makes an argument (involving an assumption) within this hypothetical scenario. He seems to make the assumption that, if marijuana were legalized, then all growers and distributors of marijuana would "play by the rules" like good citizens and pay all their due taxes. The attorney general does not make this same assumption: in fact, the attorney general cites evidence that seems to call that assumption into question. Remember, if you can see it printed in black and white in the prompt, it is definitely not an assumption. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

jacobneroth · Answer

can anyone please tell me why A is wrong

citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false,
evidence:- Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries
the conclusion (of the marijuana advocate):the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal

this tremendous gain is the reduction is crime and increase in revenue, now since the AG has proved using his example that the crimes will not reduce the crime hence he is disproving the MA's conclusion.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear jacobneroth , I'm the author of this question, and I am happy to respond. :-)

Here's the text of the question again: Marijuana advocate : If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal. Attorney General : Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein. The Attorney General uses which of the following techniques in responding to the marijuana advocate? (A) citing evidence that demonstrates the conclusion is false (B) pointing out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises (C) questioning the purported relationship between cause and effect (D) arguing that the same assumption could be used to support an opposing conclusion (E) suggesting, by analogy, potential drawbacks that might outweigh the predicted advantages The marijuana advocate was talking about the relationship between marijuana and crime within some state, presumably a US state. The AG cites evidence in other countries. Is what is true in other countries, with different cultures & languages & economies & historical situations, going to be exactly the same in the state in question? Maybe, maybe not. If something is demonstrably true in France and Argentina and Japan, does that mean it has to be true in a US state, such as Kansas? Maybe, maybe not. It depends. Some things (e.g. basic biology) are more universal, and tend to be true across cultures & countries, while other things (e.g. attitudes toward women's rights) are very context specific and can vary widely form one country to the next. Which would be more representative of how marijuana decriminalization would play out? It's very hard to say. The examples of other countries might be relevant, or things may play out very different in the state in question than they played out in those other countries. On the GMAT, the word " evidence " means something very specific. I have " evidence " in a specific case only from facts directly pertinent to that particular case. If something is cited from an analogous situation somewhere else, that might be suggestive or persuasive, but technically, it's not what the GMAT would call " evidence ." The AG's example of the dynamic in other countries is suggestive of what may happen in the state in question, but strictly speaking, it is not " evidence " in the proper sense. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

akhil911 · Answer

Hi Mike,

I chose B as the answer for this and here is why i chose this particular answer.

Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state, the state could start assessing tax on the drug, increasing state revenues. Since sales would be legal, the criminal culture supporting the drug would vanish; as crimes ceased, the state would save money on fighting crime. Overall, the state has a tremendous amount to gain by making the drug legal.

Attorney General: Studies of legalizing previously illegal drugs in other countries suggests that criminals controlling the business will not be eager either to sacrifice their profits or to play by the rules. Moreover, diverting money from crime-fighting after such legalization gives those criminals more free rein.

The premise that the increase in legal marijuana would result in decreasing crime is assumed by the advocate but the attorney does not think this way. In fact he thinks just the opposite.
This suggests that both of them have a similar premise but different conclusions related to those premises.
can you suggest why this is the incorrect choice.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear akhil911 , I'm happy to respond. :-)

This is very subtle. The marijuana advocate makes an argument: premise (legal marijuana) leads to conclusion (less crime) in this state. If the AG had focused on the structure of the marijuana advocate's argument, showing a logical problem in the link between premise and conclusion, then (B) would be correct --- in that case, the AG would " point out that the conclusion doesn't follow properly from the premises ." In other words, the AG would be attacking the essential logic of the marijuana advocate's argument. That's not what the AG does. The AG doesn't focus at all on the marijuana advocate's argument. Instead, the AG introduces the facts of a completely different situation. In this very different situation, a similar scenario leads to a different outcome. This is NOT a logical attack on the marijuana advocate's argument. Instead, it is introducing new experiences, experience of which the AG is aware and the marijuana advocate, presumably, is unaware. It may be that the marijuana advocate's conclusion follows perfectly logically from his premise, but, as the AG points out, the marijuana advocate simply does not have broad enough experience to appreciate all the ramifications of his argument. The term " properly follow " is essentially a logical term, and that addresses in the inherent logic of the argument. Not all CR arguments are about logic: the AG simply has more information, which casts what the marijuana advocate said in a different light. Sometimes new information trumps all logic. That's what this question is about. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

samusa · Answer

Hi mike

Specific question with regard to option C-

When we question the purported relationship between cause and effect, does it necessarily mean that reverse may be true OR can we also mean that cause DOES NOT lead to the said effects.??

Thanks

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear samichange , My friend, I'm happy to respond. :-)

It could mean a few different things. Consider these three particularly poor arguments. Argument #1 : The fluctuation of the ocean's tides generates a force that causes the Moon move around the Earth. Argument #2 : On any given day, the SF Bay Area BART Trains may be on schedule or may be minutes off from their schedule. Any delay in these BART trains causes a drop in the NY Stock Exchange that day, adversely affecting the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Argument #3 : Beer sales are highest when ice cream sales are also highest. Eating ice cream must cause people to want to drink beer. All of those are absurdly bad arguments. In each of them, we would have every reason to question the purported relationship between cause and effect described in the argument. In Argument #1, a valid objection would be to say: the tides don't cause the Moon's motion. Instead, the Moon's motion causes the tides. Here the object to "P causes Q" would be the statement "Q causes P." The original argument reversed cause & effect. In Argument #2, a valid object would be to say: delays on the BART trains have absolutely nothing to do with the behavior of the stock market. They are completely independent and unrelated. In Argument #3, a high school statistics book classic fallacy: it's not that P causes Q or that Q causes P, but both are caused by a third thing. In this case, the hot summer weather causes a rise in both beer sales and ice cream sales. They appear together and in fact are highly correlated because they are both caused by the same thing. It turns out, there is a large variety of relationships that two phenomena could have, and a causal relationship, a relationship of cause and effect, is only one possible relationship. If two phenomena are not in a cause and effect relationship, they could have any one of a large number of other relationships. You asked a question. I just answered it. But the fact that you asked the question didn't " cause " me to answer it. We have a relationship other than the relationship of causality. Many different alternatives for the relationship between two things are possible. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

aragonn · Answer

Official Explanation 
The AG points out data from other countries, suggesting that things will not as rosy as the marijuana advocate suggests.

The credited answer is (E). The most important point is that what the AG offers does not constitute direct proof by any means, only an analogy to similar situations in other countries. The AG doesn't deny that there might be advantages to legalizing marijuana, but merely points out a host of problems what would also arise.

Choice (A) misses the mark. The marijuana advocate doesn't cite a whole lot of evidence per se. Furthermore, it's not clear that the AG denies, for example, that the state would receive some tax revenues from the legal sale of marijuana. The AG doesn't so much dispute the positive possibilities, but introduces new negative possibilities. The AG doesn't fundamentally question the evidence in the marijuana advocate's argument.

The AG introduces new perspectives, new information. The AG doesn't directly attack the structure of the marijuana advocate's argument. That's why (B) is incorrect.

In both arguments, legalizing marijuana causes all the other social effects --- obviously none of them cause marijuana to become legal! That's why (C) is incorrect.

Similar to (B) --- the AG adds new info, rather than attacking anything about the structure of the marijuana advocate's argument. Also, the word "prove" in (D) is too strong: nothing here constitutes a "proof." That's why (D) is incorrect.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Marijuana advocate: If marijuana were legalized in this state

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards