Between 1980 and 1990, drug smugglers brought around 10 tons of drugs into…
2024
Between 1980 and 1990, drug smugglers brought around 10 tons of drugs into India, and the number of people using drugs in India rose from about 15,000 to 80,000.
In 1990, new anti-smuggling measures were introduced, and in the years that followed, more than 800 smugglers were arrested and expelled from the country. Nevertheless, drug consumption continued to climb, eventually rising to above 100,000.
Which of the following, if true, would best help explain the apparent paradox presented above?
- A.
The smugglers arrested in India between 1980 and 1990 were rarely sentenced to long prison terms.
- B.
Because of highly publicized campaigns against the consumption of drugs, demand for it rose between 1970 and 1980.
- C.
The drug consumption in neighboring Sri Lanka rose slightly between 1980 and 1990.
- D.
In India, between 1980 and 1990, much of the drug demand was mainly for medicinal and therapeutic uses.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept
In a 'resolve the paradox' critical reasoning question, two facts in the passage appear to conflict. The correct answer supplies a NEW piece of information that lets both facts be true at the same time, without weakening or contradicting either one — it must connect to BOTH sides of the conflict, not just be a plausible fact about the general topic.
Application
Here, the conflict is between an intensified anti-smuggling crackdown (new measures, 800+ smugglers arrested and expelled) and drug consumption still climbing past 100,000. A crackdown on smuggling reduces the illicit SUPPLY of drugs, so it should be expected to slow consumption. For the paradox to dissolve, we need a reason why the rising consumption does not depend on smuggled supply. If a large share of that demand was for medicinal and therapeutic use rather than recreational use fed by smuggled drugs, it is worth noting that a drug's medicinal use is typically available through ordinary domestic and medical channels rather than solely through the illicit smuggling trade — so that demand draws on channels the smuggling crackdown never touches, and consumption can keep rising even as smuggling arrests climb, letting both facts stand true together.
Cross-check: why the other options fall short
Lenient sentencing of arrested smugglers: the passage already states the 800+ smugglers were arrested AND expelled from the country — they were already removed from the domestic trade regardless of any later prison term, so this adds nothing that bridges enforcement and continued demand.
A publicity-driven rise in demand between 1970 and 1980: this points to a full decade before the crackdown described in the passage, so it cannot explain what happened to consumption during 1980-1990.
A slight rise in Sri Lanka's consumption over the same decade: a neighbouring country's own trend does not explain why enforcement inside India failed to slow India's own consumption.
So the medicinal/therapeutic-use explanation is the one fact that reconciles intensified smuggling enforcement with continuing consumption growth, resolving the apparent paradox.