Conclusion to test: “Many drug addicts were arrested.”\nStatements:\nI) Taking drugs is a crime.\nII) One who commits a crime can be arrested.\nIII) Many people take drugs regularly.

Introduction / Context:
The task is to check whether the conclusion “Many drug addicts were arrested” is a necessary inference from the given statements. The test hinges on carefully distinguishing legal possibility from guaranteed occurrence and on avoiding category shifts (e.g., “people who take drugs” vs. “drug addicts”).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) Taking drugs is a crime.
• II) Anyone who commits a crime can be arrested (i.e., is liable to arrest), not that they will be arrested.
• III) Many people take drugs regularly (frequency claim about behavior).

Concept / Approach:
A conclusion must be forced by the premises, not merely compatible with them. We must also respect precise wording: “can be arrested” expresses permission or legal possibility, not an actual fact of arrest. Additionally, “many people take drugs” does not necessarily equal “many drug addicts” in the technical sense; the set relations are not defined.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) From I and II, we get only the liability: people committing the crime of drug-taking may be arrested. This does not entail that arrests occurred.2) Statement III states a prevalence (“many people take drugs regularly”) but does not say that police executed arrests, let alone that “many” addicts (a narrower group than “people who take drugs”) were arrested.3) Therefore, the premises allow the possibility of arrests but do not guarantee the asserted outcome in the conclusion.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if enforcement were strict, that fact is not provided. Logical necessity cannot be assumed from real-world plausibility.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options (a), (b), and (c) overclaim sufficiency. The data do not bridge from liability and prevalence to the factual occurrence of “many arrests.”

Common Pitfalls:
Reading “can be arrested” as “are arrested”; blurring distinctions between “people who take drugs” and “drug addicts.”

Final Answer:
Data is insufficient to draw the conclusion.