Critical Reasoning

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.

Answer (A) as all the other option are too strong and can be eliminated. (A) accomodates well for what is asked for

IMO A

Same reason as given by vindhyareddy...the tone of other options is too strong...

IMO A

from this option it's clear that there should be other factors which affect the situation with tobacco

IMO- A

"the only factor" makes this choice even better than others.

Can someone give me 1 valid reason other than "extreme opinion " for eliminating B

IMO E

IMO : A only,

B cannot be the answer as if you read the last statement of the argument it says "smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising." so adv is one of the factor might be in those countries that lets teenagers to smoke.