Home >>GMAT >>Essays>>Essay - 22
22. The following appeared in the editorial section of a
newspaper.
�As public concern over drug abuse has
increased, authorities have become more vigilant
in their efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country. Many
drug traffickers have
consequently switched from marijuana, which is bulky, or heroin,
which has a market too small to justify the risk of severe punishment, to
cocaine. Thus enforcement efforts
have ironically resulted in an observed increase in
the illegal use of cocaine.�
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The conclusion in this argument is that
increased vigilance by drug enforcement authorities has resulted in an increase
in the illegal use of cocaine. The author
reaches this conclusion on
the grounds that drug traffickers have
responded to increased enforcement efforts by switching
from bulkier and riskier drugs to cocaine. Presumably,
the author�s reasoning is that the increased enforcement efforts inadvertently
brought about an increase in the supply of cocaine which, in turn, brought about
the observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine.
This line of reasoning is problematic in two important respects.
In the first place, the author has engaged in
�after this, therefore because of this� reasoning. The only reason offered for
believing that the
increased vigilance caused the increase in cocaine use is the fact that the
former preceded the latter. No additional evidence linking the
two events is offered in the argument, thus
leaving open the possibility that the two events are not causally related but
merely correlated. This
in turn leaves open the possibility that factors other than the one cited are
responsible for the increase in cocaine use.
In the second place, the author assumes that
an increase in the supply of cocaine is sufficient to bring
about an increase in its use. While
this is a tempting assumption,
it is a problematic one. The presumption required to substantiate this view is
that drug users are not particular about
which drugs they use, so that if marijuana and heroin are not available, they
will switch to whatever drug is available cocaine
in this case. The assumption does not seem reasonable on
its face. Marijuana, heroin, and cocaine
are not alike in their effects on users;
nor are they alike in the manner in which they are ingested or in their
addictive properties. The view that drug users� choice
of drugs is simply a function of supply overlooks these important differences.
In conclusion, the author has failed to
establish a causal link between increased enforcement efforts and the observed
increase in illegal cocaine use. While
the enforcement activities may have been a contributing factor, to show a clear
causal connection the author must examine
and rule out various other factors.
|
|