That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, however, it is not necessary to deny this fact in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers. After all, excessive consumption of candy undeniably leads to such health problems as tooth decay, but no one seriously believes that candy eaters who get cavities should be able to sue candy manufacturers.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and the health problems suffered by smokers
(B) depends on the obviously false assumption that everyone who gets cavities does so only as a result of eating too much candy
(C) leaves undefined such critical qualifying terms as 'excessive' and 'long term'.
(D) attribute certain beliefs to many people without identifying the people who hold those beliefs.
(E) fails to address the striking differences in the nature of the threat to health posed by tooth decay on the one hand and cancer and lung disease on the other.
[spoiler]OA Later. I am able to discard easily B and D.
Please explain A, C and E.[/spoiler]
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
flaw in reasoning
This topic has expert replies
-
pradeepkaushal9518
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
- Thanked: 33 times
- Followed by:5 members
imo E
nature of candy and tooth decay is different from cigarette smoking and cancer/lung diseases.
tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and using
tobaccos. so nature is totally different.
A is not correct as the passage is not all about scientific documentations
C is irrevent
nature of candy and tooth decay is different from cigarette smoking and cancer/lung diseases.
tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and using
tobaccos. so nature is totally different.
A is not correct as the passage is not all about scientific documentations
C is irrevent
-
SmarpanGamt
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:08 am
- Thanked: 6 times
IMO A : Since tooth deacy have several reasons along with eating against caner and lung disease by somking, a presence of fact ful document can weaken a claim against candy manufacturer.pradeepkaushal9518 wrote:imo E
nature of candy and tooth decay is different from cigarette smoking and cancer/lung diseases.
tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and using
tobaccos. so nature is totally different.
A is not correct as the passage is not all about scientific documentations
C is irrevent
Please suggets the OE and OA
-
this_time_i_will
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 am
- Thanked: 17 times
paes wrote:That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, however, it is not necessary to deny this fact in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers. After all, excessive consumption of candy undeniably leads to such health problems as tooth decay, but no one seriously believes that candy eaters who get cavities should be able to sue candy manufacturers.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and the health problems suffered by smokers: excessive consumption of candy undeniably leads to such health problems : more stress on the word undeniably. So the argument does establish the connection.
(C) leaves undefined such critical qualifying terms as 'excessive' and 'long term'.:If long term is undefined for cigarette ase then excessive is also undefined for candy case. So a level playing field in both case.
(E) fails to address the striking differences in the nature of the threat to health posed by tooth decay on the one hand and cancer and lung disease on the other.: E is correct
[spoiler]OA Later. I am able to discard easily B and D.
Please explain A, C and E.[/spoiler]
My Blog:
https://www.iwantutopia.blocked/
https://www.iwantutopia.blocked/
-
gmatmachoman
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
Pick Epradeepkaushal9518 wrote:imo E
nature of candy and tooth decay is different from cigarette smoking and cancer/lung diseases.
tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and using
tobaccos. so nature is totally different.
A is not correct as the passage is not all about scientific documentations
C is irrevent
People View : tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers
Author's view : rejects the People View. tobacco companies ARE NOT TO BE held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers.
evidence of author : Draws a comparision between sueing of candy manufacturers and Tobacco manufacturers.
assumption: Author made the comparision and rejected the people's view based on the assumption that "threats" developed by long-term cigarette smoking & excessive consumption of candy are SAME.
How do we weaken the author's claim??
Break the assumption.
Introduce a reasoning that author failed to understand the "striking differences in the nature of the threat"
E rightly does that...!
Small trick: The selected answer in many cases will encompass all the basic terms compared with in it.
In E: Both the terms tooth decay & cancer is used.
-
paes
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
Thanks MacMohan. OA is E.
But with the same reasoning, I selected A.
Here is my view :
Author's assumption : eating candies and smoking are similar.
Premise -> smoking causes cancer is a scientifically well-established fact.
Missing --> no scientifically well-established fact is given for candies that they create tooth decay.
Hence A
E :
Nature of threat -> this is extra information. And in an flaw question, extra information is not allowed.
Please correct my understanding.
But with the same reasoning, I selected A.
Here is my view :
Author's assumption : eating candies and smoking are similar.
Premise -> smoking causes cancer is a scientifically well-established fact.
Missing --> no scientifically well-established fact is given for candies that they create tooth decay.
Hence A
E :
Nature of threat -> this is extra information. And in an flaw question, extra information is not allowed.
Please correct my understanding.
-
paes
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and usingpradeepkaushal9518 wrote:imo E
nature of candy and tooth decay is different from cigarette smoking and cancer/lung diseases.
tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and using
tobaccos. so nature is totally different.
A is not correct as the passage is not all about scientific documentations
C is irrevent
tobaccos ---> Where is this information given ??
-
outreach
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:3 members
tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers
paes wrote:tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and usingpradeepkaushal9518 wrote:imo E
nature of candy and tooth decay is different from cigarette smoking and cancer/lung diseases.
tooth decay have several reasons along with candy eating but cancer and lung diesases are only due to smoking and using
tobaccos. so nature is totally different.
A is not correct as the passage is not all about scientific documentations
C is irrevent
tobaccos ---> Where is this information given ??
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
-
deepshi291
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:39 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
paes wrote:That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, however, it is not necessary to deny this fact in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers. After all, excessive consumption of candy undeniably leads to such health problems as tooth decay, but no one seriously believes that candy eaters who get cavities should be able to sue candy manufacturers.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and the health problems suffered by smokers
(B) depends on the obviously false assumption that everyone who gets cavities does so only as a result of eating too much candy
(C) leaves undefined such critical qualifying terms as 'excessive' and 'long term'.
(D) attribute certain beliefs to many people without identifying the people who hold those beliefs.
(E) fails to address the striking differences in the nature of the threat to health posed by tooth decay on the one hand and cancer and lung disease on the other.
[spoiler]OA Later. I am able to discard easily B and D.
Please explain A, C and E.[/spoiler]
Can someone say why it is not A?
how can it be E - there no info given only smoking causes cancer and lung diseases
-
adi_800
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:14 am
- Location: Pune, India
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
I think A as well as the example of tooth decay and candy manufacture is just a red herring. It is simple used to introduce analogy between the threats caused by eating candy and the threats caused by smoking.
When the author uses this analogy, he assumes that the threats for both are them are same and hence there is no reason for people to believe that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible.
N this flaw is properly identified by the option E.
When the author uses this analogy, he assumes that the threats for both are them are same and hence there is no reason for people to believe that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible.
N this flaw is properly identified by the option E.
