BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

GRANT Research Institute publication

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:10 am
Followed by:1 members

GRANT Research Institute publication

by psm12se » Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:03 am
The GRANT Research Institute recently published a report saying that legalizing the illegal drug dullnic in the state of Fruitland would not substantially decrease the revenue or operations of illegal drug traffickers. In the report, GRANT stated that even though legal dullnic would be of a higher quality and lower cost than illegal dullnic, sales of dullnic within Fruitland accounted for a small percentage of overall dullnic sales. Proponents of dullnic legalization point out that the GRANT Institute's logic is flawed because it fails to take into account that


A. Legally grown dullnic in Fruitland will be sold in other states in the region.

B. Once dullnic is legalized, people will try to legalize other drugs that are currently illegally trafficked.

C.Other research institutes have also studied this issue and come to different conclusions.

D. If it becomes legal to grow dullnic, people will stop buying dullnic from dealers.

E. Illegal drug traffickers will be able to legally grow dullnic within Fruitland's borders.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:13 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:650

by tisrar02 » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:03 pm
IMO- E-> If the cost is lower and the drug is legal, those dealers will grow in state for cheaper and thus not substantially decrease rev from dealers.

A- Other states doesn't matter, were talking about the dealers
B- Other drugs, not relevant
C- Not relevant
D- We can not conclude that other people will STOP buying from dealers

OA and Source????
Dedication is what leads to success...
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:57 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members

by himu » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:44 pm
+ 1 for E for same reason mentioned above.
OA & course pls ?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:43 pm
my take would be B
we need a reason as why GRANT Institute's logic is flawed .the conclusion of grant institute is : that that legalizing the illegal drug dullnic in the state of Fruitland would not substantially decrease the revenue or operations of illegal drug traffickers .it never says revenue and operation of illegal drug traffickers of dullnic .so if we cite a reason that doing something with this one drug will motivate people to try to legalize other drugs then the overall revenue an operations of illegal drugs will be affected .this is what B does
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:38 pm
plz share the OA
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:58 am
Location: New York City
Thanked: 188 times
Followed by:120 members
GMAT Score:770

by Tommy Wallach » Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:18 pm
Hey Guys,

This seems like a pretty weird question, but (E) does win.

Conclusion: Legalizing dullnic will not hurt revenues of illegal drug folks
Premise: Sales of dullnic within Fruitland are small amount of sales

(A) seems plausible. GRANT concludes that even if the legal replaces the illegal, it doesn't matter, because Fruitland is small. But if that dullnic is sold elsewhere, it could hurt the revenues of illegal drug folks all over the place. However, we don't know if dullnic is already legal in other places, so we still wouldn't be hurting other illegal drug folks.

(B) "Trying" doesn't matter. If they succeeded, that might hurt drug dealers revenues, but we don't know that.

(C) This is silly, as we don't even know what the other conclusions are!

(D) This might be tempting, but it would still only affect Fruitland, which is a small part of sales.

(E) If illegal drug traffickers from other places can start growing it legally in Fruitland, then it could hurt overall sales of illegal dullnic.

Not a great question to my mind. Where's it from?

-t
Tommy Wallach, Company Expert
ManhattanGMAT

If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:10 am
Followed by:1 members

by psm12se » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:19 am
Source: Grockit
Answer : E
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:09 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:7 members

by Soumita Ghosh » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:14 pm
Hey Tommy

I choose A. It never came in my mind that E can be answer!!

As for option A we are saying that we do not know whether dullnic is already legal in other places, so we still wouldn't be hurting other illegal drug folks. Same as for option E also we can say that we do not know whether dullnic is already legal in other places, so we still wouldn't be hurting other illegal drug folks .

Can you give anymore good reason to eliminate A and keep E.?

Thanks a lot !! :)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1