[email protected] wrote:Hi Ankitaverma,

To answer this CR question, we have to pay very careful attention to the information that it provides.

The Facts:
-Tobacco advertising plays a role in causing teenagers to continue smoking.
-In Norway, there hasn't been ANY tobacco advertising since 1975, BUT smoking is at least as prevalent as in other countries that allow that advertising.

The Issue:
-How can a country with NO tobacco advertising have the same prevalence of teenage smokers as countries that ALLOW tobacco advertising?

Since the advertising isn't consistent from country to country, I'd be looking for an answer that tells us that something else is influencing teenagers to smoke.

Only answer A matches that prediction.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

Hello Rich,
I understand your logic on arriving at A but I fail to see why B,Ccannot fit the bill. The reason why I skipped choosing A was because of the word "Only" and the arguement does not state it was the only reason but a "crucial" reason.

Can you please help me out here ... Thanks

theunheardmelody wrote:

[email protected] wrote:Hi Ankitaverma,

To answer this CR question, we have to pay very careful attention to the information that it provides.

The Facts:
-Tobacco advertising plays a role in causing teenagers to continue smoking.
-In Norway, there hasn't been ANY tobacco advertising since 1975, BUT smoking is at least as prevalent as in other countries that allow that advertising.

The Issue:
-How can a country with NO tobacco advertising have the same prevalence of teenage smokers as countries that ALLOW tobacco advertising?

Since the advertising isn't consistent from country to country, I'd be looking for an answer that tells us that something else is influencing teenagers to smoke.

Only answer A matches that prediction.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

Hello Rich,
I understand your logic on arriving at A but I fail to see why B,Ccannot fit the bill. The reason why I skipped choosing A was because of the word "Only" and the arguement does not state it was the only reason but a "crucial" reason.

Can you please help me out here ... Thanks

B & C take an extreme stand on the issue suggesting that advertising does not play any role or does not reduce tobacco consumption. There is nothing in the passage to suggest the same. Therefore, A is a safer option.

Ankitaverma wrote:Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers 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 teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.

1. Advertising tobacco is a crucial factor for teenage smokers.

2. Norway banned such advertising since 1975 but it is of equal footing as those of other countries that didn't ban such advertisements.

The immediate conclusion we can draw from these 2 statements is - Banning Tobacco Advertisements were of no use / were in effective.


This compels us into thinking that there are some other factors involved in teenage smokers.


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.

True there may be other factors - Let's keep it aside.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.

True , we already know it , it's basically an assumption and can't be a conclusion.

(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.

We already know it , this is just a restatement of what has already been said.

(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.

OUT OF SCOPE.

(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.

May be true but it's changing the direction of the conclusion....