essay - GMAT: Argument 23

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.

Answer:
The author concludes that enforced vigilance have resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine. The argument depends on two assumptions. First, cocaine is easier to smuggle from overseas than marijuana and heroin. Then, the increase is due to the increase from overseas. Since these assumptions are unwarranted, the argument fails to be convincing.

The first assumption is that drug traffickers have chosen cocaine rather than marijuana and heroin under the strengthened government vigilance because of the easiness. The author cites the characteristics of the other two drugs as the support to the assumption: marijuana is too bulky to smuggle, and the market of heroin too small. However, since the argument doesn't show any casual relationship between the enforcement and the increase of cocaine itself, the argument is substantially weak. For instance, the main reason why previously the amount of cocaine is relatively smaller than the others is that cocaine just may be difficult to produce.

The second assumption that the author implicitly depends on is that the observed increase is connected only with smuggling from foreign countries. That is, the author assumes that since the vigilance at the boundaries has been enforced, the amount of cocaine has been increased based on the first assumption I mentioned earlier. This assumption, however, is unwarranted. Most of the observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine may come from production in the country. If so, the assumption is not justified, and the conclusion fails. Therefore, the author needs to examine whether cocaine is produced in the country or not, and show the proportion.

In conclusion, the argument seems convincing enough, but because of two flaws that I mentioned above the argument is weak. The author should have showed or went over the following factors: the direct causal relationship between the vigilance and the increase of cocaine itself, and the amount of cocaine that is produced internally.