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.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
GRANT Research Institute publication
This topic has expert replies
-
tisrar02
- 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
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????
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...
-
aditya8062
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
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
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
-
aditya8062
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Tommy Wallach
- 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
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
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!
ManhattanGMAT
If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
-
Soumita Ghosh
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:09 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:7 members
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 !!
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 !!
