In the second place, the arguer fails to provide the necessary information based on which we can evaluate the comprehensive effect of the governments action. The background of the incident is that the drug abuse has now become ever more serious a social problem than anytime in the past. And this is what motivated the government actions against drug trafficking in the first place. We, therefore, can reasonably assume that before the government took actions the abuse of all major popular drugs had been on the trend of increase, including the use of cocaine. The newspaper editorial, however, only mentions the observed increase in the use of cocaine while failing to provide any information to specify the current increase and that before the government strengthened its drug contraction efforts. We thus cannot compare the patterns of change in this aspect before and after the government actions in order to reach any valid conclusion about the impact of the government actions on the use of cocaine.
If the trend of increase in cocaine abuse has been slowed down, or if the total amount of illegal drugs in the market has been significantly reduced, even though the absolute use of cocaine is still increasing, we would say that the government efforts in apprehending drug traffickers are somehow effective.
In conclusion, the arguer oversimplifies the cause-and-effect relationship between governments increased efforts and the observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that the governments enforcement efforts have directly led to the increased supply and use of cocaine. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the trend of increase in the use of cocaine and other drugs before and after the governments actions.
【孙远GMAT作文讲义(二)】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02