50000 Norwegian smokers

svaradhan · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: 50000 Norwegian smokers

Hi All, Please help me in resolving this CR -

According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, smokers who reduced their nicotine intake from cigarettes, even by up to 50 percent, did not achieve significant health benefits. The mortality rate for those who cut back on cigarettes was not lower than that for heavier smokers; moreover, the rate of cardiovascular disease was similar across all subsets of smokers in the study. As a result, the sponsors of the study claim that reducing nicotine intake does not improve one's health.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above?

(a) The majority of study participants minimized their nicotine withdrawal symptoms through the use of skin patches and chewing gum that provide nicotine to the body.

(b) Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted.

(c) The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake.

(d) Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking.

(e) Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study.

OA will follow after few discussions? Please let me know your explanations. Thanks in advance.

nitin86 · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:39 am Post subject: Re: 50000 Norwegian smokers

svaradhan · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:48 am Post subject:

Hi, that's exactly how I went about solving this problem but the answer has got a different twist to it. OA is A. this appeared in one of the MGMAT CR tests. the explanation in MGMAT is as follow which defies the basic assumption itself -

"This answer choice indicates that most study participants did not actually reduce their nicotine intake; instead, they simply received nicotine from different sources. Since the data on which the conclusion is based is not reliable, the conclusion is undermined."

In one of the posts Ron has mentioned that we should accepts facts as they are but with the above explanation I see some contradiction or may be my understanding is wrong.

bhuman111 · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject:

I think A is the best choice.

Consider these parts of the initial paragraph:
[quote]smokers who reduced their [b]nicotine intake from cigarettes[/b], even by up to 50 percent, did not achieve significant health benefits.[/quote]
[quote]As a result, the sponsors of the study claim that [b]reducing nicotine intake[/b] does not improve one's health. [/quote]

The claim made is very broad, encompassing all forms of nicotine intake. Considering option A:
[quote]The majority of study participants minimized their nicotine withdrawal symptoms through the use of skin patches and chewing gum that provide nicotine to the body.[/quote]
If study participants were not actually reducing their nicotine intake, but merely getting it from a different source, one cannot make the claim that reducing nicotine intake, in general, does not improve health.

agent47 · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject:

I will alsi go with "A "

NSNguyen · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject:

I would go with A when it crack on the premise of the stem.

hakyology · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: A

first i thought it was C but i believe A is more convincing. I am with A.

newera · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject:

A.

The whole focus of the premises is on nicotine from cigarettes. Not just nicotine. However, the conclusion talks about ALL forms of nicotine. So in answer choice A, the participants do getting cigarette nicotine but are still getting their nicotine, just in another form. So, cigarette nicotine isn't isolated and the study's validity become jeopardized.