BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Official CR: Many people argue that tobacco advertising

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

Official CR: Many people argue that tobacco advertising

by RBBmba@2014 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:05 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:06 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:42 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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 - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:59 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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 ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:26 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:27 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:21 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:08 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
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 ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:44 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

RBBmba@2014 wrote:
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
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
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:53 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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 ?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:41 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:55 am

by Pratishtha21 » Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:03 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1