Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors drug companies issued an average of 60 citations a year for serious violations of drug-promotion laws. Between 1976 and 1980, the annual average for issuance of such citations was only 5. This decrease indicates that the government office was, on average, considerably more lax in enforcing drug-promotion laws between 1976 and 1980 than it was between 1971 and 1975.
The argument assumes which one of the following?
(A) The decrease in the number of citations was not caused by a decrease in drug companies violations of drug-promotion laws.
(B) A change in enforcement of drug-promotion laws did not apply to minor violations.
(C) The enforcement of drug-promotion laws changed in response to political pressure.
(D) The government office should not issue more than an average of 5 citations a year to drug companies for serious violations of drug-promotion laws.
(E) Before 1971 the government office issued more than 60 citations a year to drug companies for serious violations of drug-promotion laws.
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Option A: This statement explains why the negligence of the government agency saddled with such regulations accounted for the sharp drop in the average citations released and not that the compliance of the companies involved. This is correct.
Option B: this remains a weak statement because the agency responsible has been sloppy in the response to both the major and minor violations. This is wrong
Option C: This statement is rather speculative because it wasn't part of the writer's suggestions nor could inference be drawn. This is wrong.
Option D: Another speculative statement. The 5 mentioned herein is from the drop from 60 citations issued. N.B. The decrease was not directly as a result of a required or stated numbers of issuance but of a direct consequence of the negligent attire of the officials saddled with such responsibilities.this is wrong.
Option E: This is a weak argument because the writer never suggested it happened before '1971' rather, it stated between 1971-1975. This is wrong.
Option B: this remains a weak statement because the agency responsible has been sloppy in the response to both the major and minor violations. This is wrong
Option C: This statement is rather speculative because it wasn't part of the writer's suggestions nor could inference be drawn. This is wrong.
Option D: Another speculative statement. The 5 mentioned herein is from the drop from 60 citations issued. N.B. The decrease was not directly as a result of a required or stated numbers of issuance but of a direct consequence of the negligent attire of the officials saddled with such responsibilities.this is wrong.
Option E: This is a weak argument because the writer never suggested it happened before '1971' rather, it stated between 1971-1975. This is wrong.
