Critical Reasoning

Virtually all health experts agree that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk. After the publication of yet another research paper explicating the link between exposure to second-hand smoke and a shorter life span, some members of the State House of Representatives proposed a ban on smoking in most public places in an attempt to promote quality of life and length of lifespan.

Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the actions of the State Representatives?

A) The amount of damaging chemicals and fumes released into the air by cigarette smoke is far less than the amount released from automobiles, especially from older models.
B) Banning smoking in most public places will not considerably reduce the percent of the population in the state in question that smokes.
C) The state whose legislators are proposing the tough smoking legislation has a relatively high percent of its population that smoke.
D) Another state that enacted a similar law a decade ago saw a statistically significant drop in lung-cancer rates among non-smokers.
E) A nearby state up-wind has the highest number of smokers in the country.

OA is.....[spoiler]...D...but is it not OOS(out of scope).[/spoiler]..........

OA shall be D only...coz in questions such as strengthen , weaken and assumption...it is possible that new information can be presented in the Answer choices which were never mentioned in the passage.....you just have to understand whether it fits in or not...all said.., this does not mean that it is impossible that no answer choice can be out of scope....

Now justfication for Why D - As per the question - " Which of the following , if true , provides most support for the actions of the state representatives" -

The state representatives proposing a ban on smoking in most public places in an attempt to promote quality of life and length of lifespan ....but whose quality of life and length of lifespan...this discussion is about second hand smokers...

A)The amount of damaging chemicals and fumes released into the air by cigarette smoke is far less than the amount released from automobiles, especially from older models - This is a comparison between damaging chemicals released by cigarettes and old automobiles...it has no effect on action of state represenatatives

B) Banning smoking in most public places will not considerably reduce the percent of the population in the state in question that smokes.- the banning is being done for second hand smokers and people who already smoke here have nothing to do with the action of state representatives...

C) The state whose legislators are proposing the tough smoking legislation has a relatively high percent of its population that smoke. - again same explanation

D) Another state that enacted a similar law a decade ago saw a statistically significant drop in lung-cancer rates among non-smokers. - this supports the action of state representatives as such a law has been enacted somewhere else and it led to a significant drop in lung cancer rates among non smokers ... so non smokers got benefitted by such a law...so its possible that ban on smoking in most public places in this particular state will promote quality of life and length of life span of non smokers...

E) A nearby state up-wind has the highest number of smokers in the country - Irrelevant...

IMO - C

The ban would have minimal effect if the state in which the ban is proposed has very few smokers.

C states that the state has a large number of smokers. Hence if the ban is imposed then it would reduce the effect of smoke on non-smokers.

I don't understans how the OA is D !

Help !

I chose D,

I was tempted by A,C and D. But i think the thing here is that the conclusion "Ban to smoke in public places --> longer life + healthy life"

A assumes too much.

in C, i think the author says, even if 90% of ppl in the state smoke, its ok, until unless they smoke in public places" if ppl don't smoke in public places they do not harm the non smokers.

I had C & D as contenders. I skipped C coz of the following reason.

Objective of the proposed legislation --> increase life span and quality of life.

We need to strengthen by picking something which confirms proposed objective will be met.

To me D is better as C just talks about % of population that smoke. With that we are not sure whether the project obj will be achieved unless we assume further that, if its high, then....we cant go this far..

D states that it is a SIMILAR law and that state has achieved what the proposed objective wants to achieve.

HTH

D: the same plan has been successhul so there is a possibility of the plan being successful in this state too. this is not the best answer but best in the given 5 choices.

C: cannot be right as we are talking about 'no of people smoking in public places' not 'just no smokers'.

Answer is D. C & D looks to be contenders, but C talks about smoker's population. However, the author is trying to stress about the non-smokers who are getting affected by the pollution

I feel the answer will be E.