The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987. If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.

The argument in the passage depends on which of the following assumptions?

The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.

The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.

Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.

The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.

A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The program to control the entry of illegal drugs into the country was a failure in 1987.	What it says: The drug control program didn't work in 1987 What it does: Makes a direct claim about the program's effectiveness What it is: Author's conclusion
If the program had been successful, the wholesale price of most illegal drugs would not have dropped substantially in 1987.	What it says: Successful programs should keep drug prices from falling a lot What it does: Provides the reasoning behind why we can call the program a failure What it is: Author's premise/evidence Visualization: Successful Program → Drug supply ↓ → Prices ↑ or stay same Failed Program → Drug supply same/↑ → Prices ↓ substantially

Argument Flow:

The author starts with the conclusion that the drug control program failed, then provides the reasoning by explaining what should have happened if it had succeeded (drug prices shouldn't have dropped substantially).

Main Conclusion:

The drug control program was a failure in 1987.

Logical Structure:

This uses contrapositive reasoning. The author assumes that if a drug control program works, it reduces supply and keeps prices from dropping substantially. Since prices did drop substantially in 1987, the program must have failed. The argument depends on the assumption that drug price changes directly reflect program effectiveness.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe to be true for their reasoning to work. The author concludes the program failed because drug prices dropped substantially.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about program effectiveness (failure), price changes (substantial drop), and timing (1987). The key relationship is between program success and price stability.

Strategy

For assumption questions, we identify ways the conclusion could be falsified while respecting the given facts. The author assumes that if prices dropped substantially, the program must have failed. We need to find what must be true for this logic to hold - essentially, what connects program failure to price drops.

Answer Choices Explained

The supply of illegal drugs dropped substantially in 1987.

This choice contradicts the author's reasoning. If supply dropped substantially, we would expect prices to increase, not decrease. The author actually believes supply didn't drop (hence the program failed), which is why prices fell. This assumption would weaken rather than support the argument.

The price paid for most illegal drugs by the average consumer did not drop substantially in 1987.

The argument specifically discusses wholesale prices, not consumer prices. Whether consumer prices dropped or not doesn't affect the logic connecting wholesale price drops to program failure. The author's reasoning doesn't depend on what happened to consumer prices - only wholesale prices matter for evaluating the control program's effectiveness.

Domestic production of illegal drugs increased at a higher rate than did the entry of such drugs into the country.

While this could explain why the program failed, it's not a necessary assumption. The author's argument works regardless of whether domestic production increased or decreased. The key point is that if the entry control program had worked, prices wouldn't have dropped substantially - domestic production rates are irrelevant to this logic.

The wholesale price of a few illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987.

The argument already acknowledges that the wholesale price of 'most' illegal drugs dropped, which implicitly allows for some drugs to have different price movements. Whether a few drugs had price increases doesn't affect the reasoning about most drugs having price decreases, so this isn't necessary for the argument.

A drop in demand for most illegal drugs in 1987 was not the sole cause of the drop in their wholesale price.

This is exactly what the author must assume. The argument connects program failure to price drops, but if demand had fallen significantly, prices could drop substantially even with a successful control program. For the author's logic to work - that substantial price drops indicate program failure - we must assume that demand changes alone didn't cause the entire price drop. Otherwise, the program could have succeeded in controlling supply, but prices still would have fallen due to demand factors.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...