• Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT

illegal drugs

This topic has 3 expert replies and 2 member replies
sallespadua Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
20 Jan 2010
Posted:
39 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Thanked:
1 times

illegal drugs

Post Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:22 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    Doubt in this question:

    The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.

    The argument in the passage depends on which of the following assumptions?

    (A) The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.
    (B) The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.
    (C) Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.
    (D) The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.
    (E) A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

    QA E

    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!

    GMAT/MBA Expert

    Osirus@VeritasPrep GMAT Instructor Default Avatar
    Joined
    28 May 2009
    Posted:
    1578 messages
    Followed by:
    34 members
    Thanked:
    128 times
    GMAT Score:
    760
    Post Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:25 am
    I would choose E

    A- If the supply dropped without a subsequent drop in demand, the prices would have risen

    B- The price that drug users paid for drugs is irrelevant to the wholesale price of the drugs

    C- This goes beyond the scope of the argument

    D- The stimulus doesn't support this

    E- Correct, this answer eliminates the possibility that a drop in demand accounted for the drop in prices for drugs.

    _________________
    http://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-osirus-blog-t51414.html

    Brandon Dorsey
    GMAT Instructor
    Veritas Prep

    Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.

    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!

    GMAT/MBA Expert

    money9111 Legendary Member
    Joined
    19 Apr 2009
    Posted:
    2109 messages
    Followed by:
    77 members
    Thanked:
    109 times
    GMAT Score:
    640
    Post Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:23 am
    E as well..and i didn't even read all of the statements

    _________________
    My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.

    My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog

    Me featured on Poets & Quants

    Free Book for MBA Applicants

    ajith Legendary Member
    Joined
    21 Sep 2006
    Posted:
    1275 messages
    Followed by:
    2 members
    Thanked:
    124 times
    Test Date:
    April 2010
    Target GMAT Score:
    740
    Post Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:36 am
    sallespadua wrote:
    Doubt in this question:

    The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.

    The argument in the passage depends on which of the following assumptions?

    (A) The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.
    (B) The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.
    (C) Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.
    (D) The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.
    (E) A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

    Conclusion: The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure
    Assumption: The drop in price of illegal drugs shows the control is not working ( or availability of illegal goods increased)
    The drop in price is not due to drop in demand

    A - Not an assumption
    B - Not an assumption
    C - No such assumption is taken
    D - Not very relevant
    E - Straight forward, the only strong answer

    _________________
    Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.

    Srikapardhi Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    06 Jan 2017
    Posted:
    1 messages
    Post Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:08 pm
    I read almost 10 answers for the same Question but yours is the best of all that helped me crack the logic. thank you much.

    ajith wrote:
    sallespadua wrote:
    Doubt in this question:

    The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.

    The argument in the passage depends on which of the following assumptions?

    (A) The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.
    (B) The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.
    (C) Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.
    (D) The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.
    (E) A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

    Conclusion: The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure
    Assumption: The drop in price of illegal drugs shows the control is not working ( or availability of illegal goods increased)
    The drop in price is not due to drop in demand

    A - Not an assumption
    B - Not an assumption
    C - No such assumption is taken
    D - Not very relevant
    E - Straight forward, the only strong answer

    Post Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:55 am
    sallespadua wrote:
    Doubt in this question:

    The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.

    The argument in the passage depends on which of the following assumptions?

    (A) The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.
    (B) The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.
    (C) Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.
    (D) The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.
    (E) A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.
    While, generally, answering Critical Reasoning questions does not require the use of any sophisticated knowledge, understanding the logic of some Critical Reasoning questions requires a basic understanding of the economic laws of supply and demand. This question is such a question.

    For anyone who is not familiar with the laws of supply and demand, here is a basic summary:

    If the supply of a good increases and all other factors are held equal, normally the price of the good decreases. Conversely, if the supply of a good decreases, normally the price increases.

    Demand affects price in the opposite way. If the demand for a good increases and all other factors are held equal, normally the price of the good increases. If demand decreases, normally the price decreases.

    Now, let’s analyze the argument in this question.

    The argument mentions a “program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country.” This program is related to the laws of supply and demand in that the purpose of the program is to reduce the supply of illegal drugs in the country by controlling the entry of the drugs.

    As discussed above, a reduction in supply should result in an increase in price, but the argument indicates that “the wholesale prices of most illegal drugs… dropped substantially.” In other words, even though there was a program meant to reduce supply, the prices fell.

    Since one would expect that a reduction in supply would result in price increases rather than price decreases, the author of the argument reasons that since the prices decreased, supply must not have decreased, and therefore, the argument concludes, the program must have failed.

    Now, let’s go to the answer choices to see which the author assumed in coming to that conclusion.

    (A) The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.

    Since the conclusion of the argument is that the program to reduce supply failed, this answer choice is not an assumption required for coming to that conclusion but rather is a statement in opposition to the conclusion.

    (B) The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.

    This answer choice is incorrect in two ways.

    The first is that the author is not concerned with the prices consumers pay, i.e., the retail prices of illegal drugs. The author is concerned with wholesale prices of illegal drugs and has already made the case that supply did not drop by pointing to the drop in wholesale prices.

    The second is that the conclusion states that the program to reduce supply failed. Any drop in prices of illegal drugs would be consistent with that conclusion. Therefore, clearly, the argument does not rely on the assumption that the retail prices of illegal drugs did not drop.

    (C) Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.

    This answer choice could be tempting because an increase in domestic production of illegal drugs would result in an increase in supply, even if there were a program in place to reduce supply from foreign sources by controlling entry of drugs into the country.

    So, this answer choice could explain why, even though there was a program to reduce supply, the prices of illegal drugs decreased; supply from domestic sources could have offset any reduction in supply achieved by the program to limit entry.

    However, we are not looking for an explanation. We are looking for an assumption. So, this choice is not our answer.

    (D) The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.

    The conclusion of the argument is that a program to reduce supply failed. Since a reduction in supply would push prices upward, price increases would indicate that the program to reduce supply had not failed but instead had succeeded. So, the conclusion does not depend on assuming that any prices of illegal drugs increased.

    (E) A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

    Correct. The argument’s conclusion, that the program to reduce supply failed, is based on the fact that the prices of illegal drugs dropped. In arriving at its conclusion, the argument relies on the assumption that there was not some other reason for the decreases in the prices of illegal drugs. Therefore, that a drop in demand was not the sole cause of the price drop is an assumption upon which the argument depends.

    The correct answer is E

    _________________

    Scott Woodbury Stewart Founder & CEO
    GMAT Quant Self-Study Course - 500+ lessons 3000+ practice problems 800+ HD solutions
    5-Day Free Trial 5-DAY FREE, FULL-ACCESS TRIAL TTP QUANT

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 LUANDATO 131 topics
    2 lheiannie07 87 topics
    3 Roland2rule 79 topics
    4 AAPL 75 topics
    5 swerve 68 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description EconomistGMATTutor

    The Economist GMAT Tutor

    164 posts
    2 image description Jay@ManhattanReview

    Manhattan Review

    128 posts
    3 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    124 posts
    4 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    121 posts
    5 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

    EMPOWERgmat

    120 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts