Norway teen smokers

Expert replies

aj5105: Legendary Member; Posts: 1169; Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 25 times

by aj5105 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:38 am

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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:38 am

viju9162: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 434; Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm; Location: Bangalore; Thanked: 6 times; GMAT Score:600

by viju9162 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:51 am

Is it A ?

"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group

Like this post

vinaynp: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 154; Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pmFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 5 times

Re: Norway teen smokers

by vinaynp » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:43 am

aj5105 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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.

IMO A) by POE.
All the rest cannot be concluded concretely.

Like this post

gauravkhare: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 19; Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 10:32 am; Thanked: 1 times

by gauravkhare » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:10 am

yes i agree. (A) should be the correct answer. As D & E are outrightly eliminated. C does not talk about teenagers. Choice is between A and B. in which A seems to be more correct.

gaurav

Like this post

amazonviper: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 109; Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:22 pm; Location: Indy; Thanked: 3 times

Re: Norway teen smokers

by amazonviper » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:55 am

aj5105 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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.

IMO A. OA please??

__________________________________

Winners never quit..Quitters never win !!

Like this post

ketkoag: Legendary Member; Posts: 876; Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am; Thanked: 13 times

Re: Norway teen smokers

by ketkoag » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:14 am

aj5105 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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.

IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..

Like this post

cata1yst: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 129; Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 9:12 am; Thanked: 8 times

Re: Norway teen smokers

by cata1yst » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:17 am

ketkoag wrote:
aj5105 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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.
IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..

But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.

Like this post

mehravikas: Legendary Member; Posts: 1161; Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 amFollowed by: 1 member; Location: Sydney; Thanked: 23 times

by mehravikas » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:13 pm

IMO - A

Like this post

ketkoag: Legendary Member; Posts: 876; Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am; Thanked: 13 times

Re: Norway teen smokers

by ketkoag » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:53 am

cata1yst wrote:
ketkoag wrote:
aj5105 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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.
IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..
But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.

please explain me, why not C..i think i'm a bit confused here.....

Like this post

aj5105: Legendary Member; Posts: 1169; Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 25 times

Re: Norway teen smokers

by aj5105 » Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:28 am

OA (A)

ketkoag,

Drawing a conclusion is nothing but drawing an inference. The answer choice for drawing an inference question must be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

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

Can we say (C) must be absolutely true? We cannot.

May be banning tobacco advertising had reduced the consumption of tobacco in some teens (while new teenagers had inculcated the habit)

ketkoag wrote:
cata1yst wrote:
ketkoag wrote:
aj5105 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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.
IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..
But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.
please explain me, why not C..i think i'm a bit confused here.....

Like this post

ketkoag: Legendary Member; Posts: 876; Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am; Thanked: 13 times

Re: Norway teen smokers

by ketkoag » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:46 am

aj5105 wrote:OA (A)

ketkoag,

Drawing a conclusion is nothing but drawing an inference. The answer choice for drawing an inference question must be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

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

Can we say (C) must be absolutely true? We cannot.

May be banning tobacco advertising had reduced the consumption of tobacco in some teens (while new teenagers had inculcated the habit)

ketkoag wrote:
cata1yst wrote:
ketkoag wrote:
aj5105 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.

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 teen-agers.

(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers 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.
IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..
But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.
please explain me, why not C..i think i'm a bit confused here.....

got it.... i missed something at the first place but now i got it..
i was thinking way too much about this. A is the most direct answer but i was just trying to get whether other options can be atleast true... E is not mentioned in the passage at all.
thanks..

Like this post

james33: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 200; Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 7:56 pm

Looking at it now, E makes sense

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

• Page 1 of 1

GMAT Course Reviews

559 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review