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

Redeem

Grant Research Institute

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:09 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:7 members

Grant Research Institute

by Soumita Ghosh » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:46 pm
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.



OA E


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
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:30 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by paresh_patil » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 am
I will give it a try.

It is stated in the report that the sales of dullnic within Fruitland accounted for a small percentage of overall dullnic sales which means the illegally grown drug is also sold in other regions, and that it contributes to much of its sales
and option A says that legally grown drug will be sold in other states. So this not a flaw and hence can be eliminated.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:2 members

by Mission2012 » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:19 am
Soumita Ghosh wrote: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.



OA E


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 !! :)
Hi Soumita,

What is the source of this question?

Lets analyze the argument -

Conclusion - legalizing the illegal drug dullnic in the state of Fruitland would not substantially decrease the revenue or operations of illegal drug traffickers

Premise -
1. sales of dullnic within Fruitland accounted for a small percentage of overall dullnic sales
2. legal dullnic would be of a higher quality and lower cost than illegal dullnic

To find a flaw, we need to point out a statement that would decrease the revenue of Illegal drug traffickers

Lets analyze options -

A> Legally grown dullnic in Fruitland will be sold in other states in the region
I would not rule out this one but would put it on hold as I don't know if dullnic is illegal in other states and drug traffickers were selling illegal dullnic to other states

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

This one brings in a new scenario not considered by Grant and that scenario certainly reduces the revenue of illegal drug traffickers

E>Illegal drug traffickers will be able to legally grow dullnic within Fruitland's borders.
This will is also iffy, as i am not sure if an illegal drug trafficker is selling legally grown dullnic is his revenue and operations are decreasing or not

I would pick B
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1