MGMAT Test 1 CR

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:07 am
Thanked: 5 times

MGMAT Test 1 CR

by paridhi » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:12 am
Letter writer: Illegal drug use is often associated with other violent crimes. Statistics indicate that each time police increase their enforcement of anti-drug laws in the city, the number of violent crimes committed in the city declines as a result. However, eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime. If drugs were no longer illegal, the price would drop precipitously, and drug users would be less likely to use illegal means to acquire the money necessary to support their drug habits.

In the letter writer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is support offered by the letter writer for a certain forecast; the second is that forecast.
(B) The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that position.
(C) The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will hold in the case at hand; the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
(D) The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
(E) The first is a statement that the letter writer believes is true; the second is presented as a logical inference drawn from the truth of that statement.

OA D. Can someone please explain. I chose B and cannot understand what is wrong with it.
Also, while explaining your answers could please tell me the conclusion of the above stimulus.
Last edited by paridhi on Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:34 am
Can you please bold the lines?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:07 am
Thanked: 5 times

by paridhi » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:43 am

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:41 am
I am unable to understand why D is correct. Will need some experts/others input on this.

(B) The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that position.
I think B is wrong because, it says that the second bold part is the position. But actually, the second bold part is a IF statement. So it cannot be a position.

If the bold part was "drug users would be less likely to use illegal means to acquire the money necessary to support their drug habits. ". May be B would have been contender.

I am clueless and may be wrong too. Request some experts' thoughts.

Praveen

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:36 am
the options are quiet confusing

first bold letters :- police increase enforcement of anti drug laws the number of violent crimes committed decreases.

The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts


second bold face:-If drugs were no longer illegal, the price would drop precipitously, and drug users would be less likely to use illegal means to acquire the money necessary to support their drug habits.

the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
prediction:-police increase enforcement of anti drug laws the number of violent crimes committed decreases.

i hope its help to understand why option D is corrrect

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:58 am

by jaghsi » Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:07 pm
B cannot be because the second bold face is not a "position" but a reason/information for that "position". The position being:"eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime."

Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:58 am
paridhi wrote:Letter writer: Illegal drug use is often associated with other violent crimes. Statistics indicate that each time police increase their enforcement of anti-drug laws in the city, the number of violent crimes committed in the city declines as a result. However, eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime. If drugs were no longer illegal, the price would drop precipitously, and drug users would be less likely to use illegal means to acquire the money necessary to support their drug habits.

In the letter writer's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is support offered by the letter writer for a certain forecast; the second is that forecast.
(B) The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that position.
(C) The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will hold in the case at hand; the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
(D) The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
(E) The first is a statement that the letter writer believes is true; the second is presented as a logical inference drawn from the truth of that statement.

OA D. Can someone please explain. I chose B and cannot understand what is wrong with it.
Also, while explaining your answers could please tell me the conclusion of the above stimulus.
B cant be true bc the main position in the argument is "However, eliminating criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of violent crime" while the second bold sentence just support or explain the idea the letter posted in the main position