• Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors

Official CR: Many people argue that tobacco advertising

This topic has 8 expert replies and 4 member replies
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Thanked:
8 times

Official CR: Many people argue that tobacco advertising

Post Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:47 pm
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

    Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?


    (A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
    (B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
    (C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
    (D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
    (E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.


    OA: A

    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    Post Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:05 am
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

    Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?


    (A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
    (B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
    (C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
    (D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
    (E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.


    OA: A
    Boiled way down: In Norway teenage smoking is as prevalent as it is in other countries, despite a long-time advertising ban. Clearly, if these kids began smoking in the absence of advertising, there had to have been a factor other than advertising that prompted them to start. Captured in A.

    _________________
    Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

    Veritas Prep Reviews
    Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
    Post Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:06 am
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

    Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?


    (A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
    (B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
    (C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
    (D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
    (E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.


    OA: A
    Put another way, if advertising were the only factor that impacted the prevalence of smoking in teenagers, it wouldn't make any sense for smoking rates to be no different in a country that banned advertising.

    _________________
    Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

    Veritas Prep Reviews
    Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
    Post Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:42 am
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

    Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?


    (A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
    (B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
    (C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
    (D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
    (E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.


    OA: A
    David's rationale is perfect.
    However, here's a backup strategy to consider:

    Negate each answer choice. If the NEGATED answer choice contradict the given information, then it is the correct answer.

    So A, when negated, becomes Tobacco advertising IS the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
    This negated answer choice makes no sense since we're told that there's no tobacco advertising in Norway and the teenagers there smoke just as much as teenagers in countries that have tobacco advertising.
    So, the correct answer is A

    _________________
    Brent Hanneson – Founder of GMATPrepNow.com
    Use our video course along with Beat The GMAT's free 60-Day Study Guide

    Check out the online reviews of our course
    Come see all of our free resources

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    GMAT Prep Now's comprehensive video course can be used in conjunction with Beat The GMAT’s FREE 60-Day Study Guide and reach your target score in 2 months!
    RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
    Joined
    30 May 2012
    Posted:
    889 messages
    Followed by:
    4 members
    Thanked:
    8 times
    Post Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:59 am
    Dave/Brent,
    While I understand your reply, but still got a doubt on the OA:
    It could be the case that even if "tobacco advertising" is the the ONLY determinant/factor as far as the prevalence of smoking among teenagers is concerned, then also country with BAN on advertising is having similar prevalence to the country with NO ban because country with BAN had higher smoking rate before the the BAN and post-BAN thus the prevalence has become similar to that of the country with NO ban. Thus, negation in this case doesn't seem to hit the PREMISE in the ARGUMENT .
    Why it will be wrong ?

    As for Option D: It's clearly wrong since it goes the against the notion/central idea of the ARGUMENT. An Inference can't got against the ARGUMENT. Am I correct ?

    Post Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:26 am
    Quote:
    It could be the case that even if "tobacco advertising" is the the ONLY determinant/factor as far as the prevalence of smoking among teenagers is concerned, then also country with BAN on advertising is having similar prevalence to the country with NO ban because country with BAN had higher smoking rate before the the BAN and post-BAN thus the prevalence has become similar to that of the country with NO ban. Thus, negation in this case doesn't seem to hit the PREMISE in the ARGUMENT
    Details. The ban was implemented in 1975. We're talking about the prevalence of smoking in teenagers today. We can safely assume that today's teenagers were not smoking before the ban because they wouldn't be born for over two decades! So all of Norway's current teenagers began smoking once the ban was in place, meaning that it had to have been some other determinant that led them to begin.

    _________________
    Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

    Veritas Prep Reviews
    Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
    Post Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:27 am
    Quote:
    As for Option D: It's clearly wrong since it goes the against the notion/central idea of the ARGUMENT. An Inference can't got against the ARGUMENT. Am I correct ?
    Precisely.

    _________________
    Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

    Veritas Prep Reviews
    Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
    Post Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:21 am
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    Dave/Brent,
    While I understand your reply, but still got a doubt on the OA:
    It could be the case that even if "tobacco advertising" is the the ONLY determinant/factor as far as the prevalence of smoking among teenagers is concerned, then also country with BAN on advertising is having similar prevalence to the country with NO ban because country with BAN had higher smoking rate before the the BAN and post-BAN thus the prevalence has become similar to that of the country with NO ban. Thus, negation in this case doesn't seem to hit the PREMISE in the ARGUMENT .
    Why it will be wrong ?
    An inference is a statement that MUST BE TRUE, given the information in the passage.
    One approach is to apply the NEGATION TEST.
    When the correct answer choice is negated, the passage will be contradicted.

    Passage:
    In Norway, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.
    In other words, countries with tobacco advertising do NOT have more teenage smoking than Norway, which bans tobacco advertising.

    A, negated:
    Tobacco advertising is the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
    Implication:
    Countries with tobacco advertising MUST HAVE MORE teenage smoking than countries without tobacco advertising, since tobacco advertising is the ONLY factor that affects the prevalence of teenage smoking.

    The negation of A contradicts the portion in red and thus the passage.
    Since the negation of A contradicts the passage, A is a valid inference: a statement that MUST BE TRUE, given the information in the passage.

    The correct answer is A.

    _________________
    Mitch Hunt
    GMAT Private Tutor
    GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
    If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
    Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
    For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
    RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
    Joined
    30 May 2012
    Posted:
    889 messages
    Followed by:
    4 members
    Thanked:
    8 times
    Post Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:08 am
    DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
    Quote:
    It could be the case that even if "tobacco advertising" is the the ONLY determinant/factor as far as the prevalence of smoking among teenagers is concerned, then also country with BAN on advertising is having similar prevalence to the country with NO ban because country with BAN had higher smoking rate before the the BAN and post-BAN thus the prevalence has become similar to that of the country with NO ban. Thus, negation in this case doesn't seem to hit the PREMISE in the ARGUMENT
    Details. The ban was implemented in 1975. We're talking about the prevalence of smoking in teenagers today. We can safely assume that today's teenagers were not smoking before the ban because they wouldn't be born for over two decades! So all of Norway's current teenagers began smoking once the ban was in place, meaning that it had to have been some other determinant that led them to begin.
    Hi Dave,
    I understand the point you're trying to make here...
    But my concern was that say,now in Norway 20% teenagers smoke - same rate as in the country where advertising is BANNED. But prior to 1975 in Norway when there was NO BAN, say, 40% teenagers used to smoke.

    So, in this situation how the point I raised in the above quote is to be dealt with ?

    Post Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:44 am
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
    Quote:
    It could be the case that even if "tobacco advertising" is the the ONLY determinant/factor as far as the prevalence of smoking among teenagers is concerned, then also country with BAN on advertising is having similar prevalence to the country with NO ban because country with BAN had higher smoking rate before the the BAN and post-BAN thus the prevalence has become similar to that of the country with NO ban. Thus, negation in this case doesn't seem to hit the PREMISE in the ARGUMENT
    Details. The ban was implemented in 1975. We're talking about the prevalence of smoking in teenagers today. We can safely assume that today's teenagers were not smoking before the ban because they wouldn't be born for over two decades! So all of Norway's current teenagers began smoking once the ban was in place, meaning that it had to have been some other determinant that led them to begin.
    Hi Dave,
    I understand the point you're trying to make here...
    But my concern was that say,now in Norway 20% teenagers smoke - same rate as in the country where advertising is BANNED. But prior to 1975 in Norway when there was NO BAN, say, 40% teenagers used to smoke.

    So, in this situation how the point I raised in the above quote is to be dealt with ?
    Let's take that example and see if it can hold, logically. Say that advertising is the only factor that influences teenage smoking rates. Now we'll say that in 1974 there were 100 teenagers in Norway and 40 of them smoke. We'll also say that in 2017 there are 100 teenagers and 20 of them smoke. Could it be true that smoking ads were the only factor that contributed to smoking rates?

    Well, in 2017, the 40 smoking teenagers from 1974 are all middle-aged. So it's not as though the advertising ban dropped the number of smokers in this population from 40 to 20. Rather, we've got 40 middle-aged smokers (we'll say that no one was able to quit for simplicity's sake) and 20 new teenage smokers. How could smoking ads be the only determining factor for those 20 new smokers if the ads were banned before they were born? So in this scenario there has to be some other variable prompting those 20 smokers to begin smoking. Maybe it was peer pressure. Maybe it was the subconscious influence of movie scenes. Who knows? Ads might have been one factor for some of the 40 smokers in 1974. And the absence of ads might help explain why there aren't more smokers in 2017. But they cannot, logically, be the only factor that influences smoking rates.

    _________________
    Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

    Veritas Prep Reviews
    Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
    RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Default Avatar
    Joined
    30 May 2012
    Posted:
    889 messages
    Followed by:
    4 members
    Thanked:
    8 times
    Post Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:53 am
    DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    Hi Dave,
    I understand the point you're trying to make here...
    But my concern was that say,now in Norway 20% teenagers smoke - same rate as in the country where advertising is BANNED. But prior to 1975 in Norway when there was NO BAN, say, 40% teenagers used to smoke.

    So, in this situation how the point I raised in the above quote is to be dealt with ?
    Let's take that example and see if it can hold, logically. Say that advertising is the only factor that influences teenage smoking rates. Now we'll say that in 1974 there were 100 teenagers in Norway and 40 of them smoke. We'll also say that in 2017 there are 100 teenagers and 20 of them smoke. Could it be true that smoking ads were the only factor that contributed to smoking rates?

    Well, in 2017, the 40 smoking teenagers from 1974 are all middle-aged. So it's not as though the advertising ban dropped the number of smokers in this population from 40 to 20. Rather, we've got 40 middle-aged smokers (we'll say that no one was able to quit for simplicity's sake) and 20 new teenage smokers. How could smoking ads be the only determining factor for those 20 new smokers if the ads were banned before they were born? So in this scenario there has to be some other variable prompting those 20 smokers to begin smoking. Maybe it was peer pressure. Maybe it was the subconscious influence of movie scenes. Who knows? Ads might have been one factor for some of the 40 smokers in 1974. And the absence of ads might help explain why there aren't more smokers in 2017. But they cannot, logically, be the only factor that influences smoking rates.
    I think, this time I got you -- the KEY here is : "How could smoking ads be the only determining factor for those 20 new smokers if the ads were banned before they were born?". Right ?

    Essentially, it means that if if "tobacco advertising" is the the ONLY determinant/factor as far as the prevalence of smoking among teenagers is concerned, then in absence of this "tobacco advertising" how this new group of teenagers are taking up smoking in Norway -- so, that means there must be some other factor/aspect influencing smoking habits among teenagers.

    Did I get you right ?

    Post Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:41 am
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
    RBBmba@2014 wrote:
    Hi Dave,
    I understand the point you're trying to make here...
    But my concern was that say,now in Norway 20% teenagers smoke - same rate as in the country where advertising is BANNED. But prior to 1975 in Norway when there was NO BAN, say, 40% teenagers used to smoke.

    So, in this situation how the point I raised in the above quote is to be dealt with ?
    Let's take that example and see if it can hold, logically. Say that advertising is the only factor that influences teenage smoking rates. Now we'll say that in 1974 there were 100 teenagers in Norway and 40 of them smoke. We'll also say that in 2017 there are 100 teenagers and 20 of them smoke. Could it be true that smoking ads were the only factor that contributed to smoking rates?

    Well, in 2017, the 40 smoking teenagers from 1974 are all middle-aged. So it's not as though the advertising ban dropped the number of smokers in this population from 40 to 20. Rather, we've got 40 middle-aged smokers (we'll say that no one was able to quit for simplicity's sake) and 20 new teenage smokers. How could smoking ads be the only determining factor for those 20 new smokers if the ads were banned before they were born? So in this scenario there has to be some other variable prompting those 20 smokers to begin smoking. Maybe it was peer pressure. Maybe it was the subconscious influence of movie scenes. Who knows? Ads might have been one factor for some of the 40 smokers in 1974. And the absence of ads might help explain why there aren't more smokers in 2017. But they cannot, logically, be the only factor that influences smoking rates.
    I think, this time I got you -- the KEY here is : "How could smoking ads be the only determining factor for those 20 new smokers if the ads were banned before they were born?". Right ?

    Essentially, it means that if if "tobacco advertising" is the the ONLY determinant/factor as far as the prevalence of smoking among teenagers is concerned, then in absence of this "tobacco advertising" how this new group of teenagers are taking up smoking in Norway -- so, that means there must be some other factor/aspect influencing smoking habits among teenagers.

    Did I get you right ?
    Exactly.

    _________________
    Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

    Veritas Prep Reviews
    Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

    Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
    Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
    Pratishtha21 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    01 Jul 2017
    Posted:
    32 messages
    Post Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:03 am
    Since banning ads of tobacco did not reduce consumption among teens, we can say that advertising is not the only factor which can impact smokers. There must be other relevant reasons as well.

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 lheiannie07 107 topics
    2 ardz24 64 topics
    3 LUANDATO 62 topics
    4 swerve 60 topics
    5 AAPL 57 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    166 posts
    2 image description EconomistGMATTutor

    The Economist GMAT Tutor

    135 posts
    3 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    124 posts
    4 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

    EMPOWERgmat

    123 posts
    5 image description Scott@TargetTestPrep

    Target Test Prep

    118 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts