Critical Reasoning

In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a judgement that allowed the estate of a deceased smoker to recover a small pecuniary amount against a large contingent of tobacco companies. This monetary judgement, however small, opened a floodgate of litigation against the tobacco industry. Heretofore the issue of proximate cause allowed cigarette companies to escape liability for wrongful death lawsuits to long-time smokers. But now spurred by the Supreme Court decision, plaintiffs from every state filed multimillion dollar lawsuits; attorneys brought actions on behalf of class action clients, and large coalitions of states banded together to file billion dollar lawsuits in federal courts. The state coalitions offered statistical evidence that soaring state health costs in treating constituents for smoking-related illnesses-such as lung cancer and heart disease-should now be borne by the tobacco industry. The states cited the recent cases that demonstrated the causal link between smoking and health issues. Immediately, the tobacco industry opened settlement talks

Which of the following statistics that came to light during the settlement discussions between the states and tobacco companies, that, if true, tends to undermine the states' statistical argument?

A) Statistics reflect that many more women than men are stricken by illnesses related to smoking.


B) According to medical research, certain types of lung cancer and heart disease may be caused by other external hazards.

c) Smokers have a shorter life expectancy on average than non-smokers.


d) The larger, more populated states incur more monetary expenses than the smaller, less populated states in treating tobacco- related illnesses.

e) Proximate cause remains a legal issue in many federal district courts that will hear tobacco cases well into the 21st century.

OA C - Please cite reasons for rejecting/selecting an option and please do not see the OA before answering the question

Where is the question?

reply2spg wrote:Where is the question?

Edited ... Now digging a hole to hide for sometime!

I would have picked A --- women have something in them which makes them more vulnerable -- so smoking is not the cause (I guess we also don't know if in fact there are more women-smokers than men-smokers which causes this -- but then again it would be their larger numbers which would be the cause)

Not sure how average life expectancy comes in --- a shorter average life expectancy seems to me would suggest that smoking may be the cause and that would support the states' position

Also, general note - Note sure if it was intended:

"The state coalitions offered statistical evidence that soaring state health costs in treating constituents for smoking-related illnesses-such as lung cancer and heart disease-should now be borne by the tobacco industry"

but how can the stats evidence (which is factual in nature) have a "should" in it? I read it to mean the evidence presented a case for the bill related to such illnesses to be picked up by the tobacco companies... i wonder how you can offer evidence THAT costs... SHOULD be borne by the tobacco companies... Should doesn't seem to go well with what the sentence is trying to say...

I think the answer should be B.

The stimulus says that the state coalitions offered statistical cited the recent cases that demonstrated the causal link between smoking and health issues and said this link is the reason for high health costs in treating constituents for smoking-related illnesses-such as lung cancer and heart disease.

Therefore the argument is that Smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease in all smokers (plantiffs in this case), hence their medical costs should be borne by the tobacco industry.

If we found there is statistical evidence that there are other reasons to contract these diseases, then it would undermine the state's statistical argument? B gives that evidence.

With regards to C, I don't believe the arguments suggests that smokers are dying young, so life expectancy is not under discussion and doesnt add value ? Can anyone explain why C ?? Are you sure the OA is C ?

B does not undermine too stronngly --- it says "certain types" of cancer....


Which means only for a limited number of the whole set of cancers etc is the cause identified by research as other hazards...
B I think is a trap as it uses "certain" for that reason... But I have my doubts about C as well..

imo B.

Alternate causes exist to lung and heart diseases. So the state's budget of such need not be borne entirely by tobacco companies... I agree with hitmis re: option C

Wow, a superlong argument and a puzzling OA. I don't understand why C is correct

Maybe, states are thinking about high continued treatment expenses and therefore asking Tobacco companies to bear the cost. The reason that, smokers live on an average a shorter life than non smokers, means the cost is not much as the states expect and undermines the reasoning. Oh, I'm just rambling!

IMO E.

Since the Proximate cause for lung cancer and heart disease is still not pointed out..case hearing is yet to be done. Companies can rise this as issue and halt settlement talks..

OA pls..

IMO B.

We need one reason to disapprove the casual link. B does that.

I agree: B most directly refutes/undermines the argument.

Can we please get some expert input?