CR Boldface: Illegal drug use

[divineacclivity]

Letter writer: Illegal drug use is often associated with other serious problems, such as armed robbery and other
violent crimes. Statistics indicate that each time police increase their enforcement of anti-drug laws in
the city, the number of violent crimes committed in the city declines as a result. However, eliminating
criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of armed
robbery and other violent crime. If drugs were no longer illegal, the price would drop precipitously, and
drug users would no longer need to commit crimes to acquire the money necessary to support their
drug habits. In the letter writer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
- The first is support offered by the letter writer for a certain forecast; the second is that forecast.
- The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that
position.
- The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer argues is an infallible predictor of
future events; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that relationship would not apply.
- The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the future; the
second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
- The first is a statement that the letter writer believes is true; the second is presented as a logical inference drawn
from the truth of that statement.

Source: CR 700-800
I chose option C because:
Boldface1: every time anti-drug enforcement increases, violent crime decreases --> direct relation between two thing: anti-drug enforcement & crime
Boldface2: The relationship defined above wouldn't apply on penalties
OA: D
On reading the option D, that also sounds good but what's wrong with C? thanks in advance

[Willy]

Letter writer: Illegal drug use is often associated with other serious problems, such as armed robbery and other
violent crimes. Statistics indicate that each time police increase their enforcement of anti-drug laws in
the city, the number of violent crimes committed in the city declines as a result. However, eliminating
criminal penalties for drug use would almost certainly decrease rather than increase the incidence of armed
robbery and other violent crime. If drugs were no longer illegal, the price would drop precipitously, and
drug users would no longer need to commit crimes to acquire the money necessary to support their
drug habits. In the letter writer’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
- The first is support offered by the letter writer for a certain forecast; the second is that forecast.
- The first acknowledges an observation that refutes the main position that the letter writer takes; the second is that
position.
- The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer argues is an infallible predictor of
future events; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that relationship would not apply.
- The first is a direct relationship between two activities that the letter writer predicts will not hold in the future; the
second offers information that, if true, would support that prediction.
- The first is a statement that the letter writer believes is true; the second is presented as a logical inference drawn
from the truth of that statement.

Source: CR 700-800
I chose option C because:
Boldface1: every time anti-drug enforcement increases, violent crime decreases --> direct relation between two thing: anti-drug enforcement & crime
Boldface2: The relationship defined above wouldn't apply on penalties
OA: D
On reading the option D, that also sounds good but what's wrong with C? thanks in advance

Please format the question as it is really not easy to read it in its present form. Also, please make the boldface parts clear, you can highlight or make them bold. Your boldface2 doesn't even appear in the argument!

[divineacclivity]

I am so sorry; I just didn't review it after I submitted :)
I've made the boldface; thanks for pointing out.

[tim]

As per the forum rules, we need a verifiable source for the problem before we can deal with this question. If the question is not one of ours or one that is copyright-free, we will have to delete the question..