The argument in the passage would be most seriously weakened if it were true that
(A) in 1987 smugglers of illegal drugs, as a group, had significantly more funds at their disposal than did the country’s customs agents
(B) domestic production of illegal drugs increased substantially in 1987
(C) the author’s statements were made in order to embarrass the officials responsible for the drug-control program
(D) in 1987 illegal drugs entered the country by a different set of routes than they did in 1986
(E) the country’s citizens spent substantially more money on illegal drugs in 1987 than they did in 1986.
If domestic production of illegal drugs increased substantially, the overall supply could have increased (and the price fallen) without more illegal drugs entering the country, and without any failure of the program. Thus, choice B is the best answer.
None of the other choices weakens the argument. The smugglers’ having more money (choice A) suggests that they would have resources to evade controls. The author’s intention (choice C) is irrelevant to whether the reasoning the statements express is cogent. A charge of routes (choice D) would have increased the chance of the program failing, and an increase in the amount of money spent (choice E) also provides evidence that the program did fail, given the low price levels
為什麼 (E) the country’s citizens spent substantiallymore money on illegal drugs in 1987 than they did in 1986. 顯示計劃的失敗?!
spending more money on illegal drugs
不是暗示 price of illegal drugs in 1987 would not have dropped, 表示計劃的成功嗎???
thx
