The fight against the drug trade

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

The fight against the drug trade

by patanjali.purpose » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:59 pm
The fight against the drug trade in Country X should focus for the time being on tightening the country's borders and targeting its major smugglers. Wiping out poppy fields in rural areas means even greater hardship for an economically depressed farming population. Rather, the United Nations and the government of Country X must carefully rebuild agricultural infrastructure in areas where the economy depends on these poppy fields.

What purpose do the two boldface sentences serve in the passage?

1) The first is the conclusion drawn by the speaker; the second is the alternative to that conclusion.
2) The first is a short-term solution to a problem; the second is a long-term solution to the same problem.
3) The first presents a problem; the second poses an ideal solution to the problem.
4) The first presents a popular solution to a problem; the second presents a solution preferred by the author.
5) The first presents an argument; the second presents evidence to support the argument.

MGMAT; OA-[spoiler]B;[/spoiler]

[spoiler]E- MGMAT solution says 1st and 2nd statments are ARGUMENTS. E is wrong because it says 2nd statement is EVIDENCE. Why MGMAT says 1st and 2nd statements are ARGUMENTS - what is argument?[/spoiler]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:32 pm
I think the big giveaway that the two bolded portions are arguments (or more specifically, conclusions) is the use of "should" in the first and "must" in the second. This means that they are not statements of fact (premises).
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test

Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:46 pm
Bill@VeritasPrep wrote:I think the big giveaway that the two bolded portions are arguments (or more specifically, conclusions) is the use of "should" in the first and "must" in the second. This means that they are not statements of fact (premises).
Thanks Bill,

So arguments are anything that is not FACT! Pls advice.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:29 am
We know premises must be 100% true on the GMAT. The conclusion is what we're trying to prove using those facts, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily true. It is often an opinion, and verbs like "should" help us recognize that.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test