Critical Reasoning

In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?" The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.



Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?

A. Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.

B. In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.

C. The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.

D. There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.

E. The state law would not affect existing local ordinances banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard.


Well, there has been a controversy over B and C, pls explain me ?

IMO C

only choices which made sense are B & C.
I ruled out B because no information is given about the rural areas of the state.
IN C it clearly states that the proposed law will only overrule the present stronger city rules..
hope it helps..
cheers

Is it C?

This expl. is so shallow... I don't understand why state overrule city rule that makes citizens misunderstanding???

k.pankaj.r wrote:IMO C

only choices which made sense are B & C.
I ruled out B because no information is given about the rural areas of the state.
IN C it clearly states that the proposed law will only overrule the present stronger city rules..
hope it helps..
cheers

This expl. is so shallow... I don't understand why state overrule city rule that makes citizens misunderstanding???

k.pankaj.r wrote:IMO C

only choices which made sense are B & C.
I ruled out B because no information is given about the rural areas of the state.
IN C it clearly states that the proposed law will only overrule the present stronger city rules..
hope it helps..
cheers

tracyyahoo wrote:This expl. is so shallow... I don't understand why state overrule city rule that makes citizens misunderstanding???

k.pankaj.r wrote:IMO C

only choices which made sense are B & C.
I ruled out B because no information is given about the rural areas of the state.
IN C it clearly states that the proposed law will only overrule the present stronger city rules..
hope it helps..
cheers

Let's begin by understanding what what the question wants us to do. What would make this petition mislead? Not just mislead - mislead specific people - those who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide. So these people think that this petition is taking the local anitsmoking laws to the state level - they think it is against smoking. But we want the petition to mislead these people - we want the petition to make them think it is anti-smoking when in fact it goes the other way and ALLOWS smoking.

this is the only real difficulty in the question. Once you cut through the flips and backflips and tell yourself that you need to find an answer choice that means that the petition is actually PRO smoking, C is obvious - The local ordinances are strongly against anti smoking, but the petition want to supersede these with a weaker state law, thereby weakening the anti-smoking cause instead of strengthening it.

B would've been an answer if the petition had included the words "ONLY" : The petition advocates a state law banning smoking ONLY in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public. If the state law limited smoking only in these places, (implying that in other places, smoking is allowed), it would indeed weaken the cause of anti-smoking - it would, in fact do what C does. But without the word only, we're left with a petition that says "do not smoke in a public house", while still keeping other anti-smoking intact - which does not weaken the cause of anti-smoking, and thus does not mislead people who think that the cause is strengthened by the petition.

Still don't follow,

Why state law supercede makes people misleading??? How they allow smoking which local states advocate antismoking???

Where does C says state law are allowing people smoking??? they just supercede but nothing else, I still don't follow...

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

tracyyahoo wrote:This expl. is so shallow... I don't understand why state overrule city rule that makes citizens misunderstanding???

k.pankaj.r wrote:IMO C

only choices which made sense are B & C.
I ruled out B because no information is given about the rural areas of the state.
IN C it clearly states that the proposed law will only overrule the present stronger city rules..
hope it helps..
cheers

Let's begin by understanding what what the question wants us to do. What would make this petition mislead? Not just mislead - mislead specific people - those who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide. So these people think that this petition is taking the local anitsmoking laws to the state level - they think it is against smoking. But we want the petition to mislead these people - we want the petition to make them think it is anti-smoking when in fact it goes the other way and ALLOWS smoking.

this is the only real difficulty in the question. Once you cut through the flips and backflips and tell yourself that you need to find an answer choice that means that the petition is actually PRO smoking, C is obvious - The local ordinances are strongly against anti smoking, but the petition want to supersede these with a weaker state law, thereby weakening the anti-smoking cause instead of strengthening it.

B would've been an answer if the petition had included the words "ONLY" : The petition advocates a state law banning smoking ONLY in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public. If the state law limited smoking only in these places, (implying that in other places, smoking is allowed), it would indeed weaken the cause of anti-smoking - it would, in fact do what C does. But without the word only, we're left with a petition that says "do not smoke in a public house", while still keeping other anti-smoking intact - which does not weaken the cause of anti-smoking, and thus does not mislead people who think that the cause is strengthened by the petition.

tracyyahoo wrote:Still don't follow,

Why state law supercede makes people misleading??? How they allow smoking which local states advocate antismoking???

Where does C says state law are allowing people smoking??? they just supercede but nothing else, I still don't follow...

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

tracyyahoo wrote:This expl. is so shallow... I don't understand why state overrule city rule that makes citizens misunderstanding???

k.pankaj.r wrote:IMO C

only choices which made sense are B & C.
I ruled out B because no information is given about the rural areas of the state.
IN C it clearly states that the proposed law will only overrule the present stronger city rules..
hope it helps..
cheers

Let's begin by understanding what what the question wants us to do. What would make this petition mislead? Not just mislead - mislead specific people - those who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide. So these people think that this petition is taking the local anitsmoking laws to the state level - they think it is against smoking. But we want the petition to mislead these people - we want the petition to make them think it is anti-smoking when in fact it goes the other way and ALLOWS smoking.

this is the only real difficulty in the question. Once you cut through the flips and backflips and tell yourself that you need to find an answer choice that means that the petition is actually PRO smoking, C is obvious - The local ordinances are strongly against anti smoking, but the petition want to supersede these with a weaker state law, thereby weakening the anti-smoking cause instead of strengthening it.

B would've been an answer if the petition had included the words "ONLY" : The petition advocates a state law banning smoking ONLY in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public. If the state law limited smoking only in these places, (implying that in other places, smoking is allowed), it would indeed weaken the cause of anti-smoking - it would, in fact do what C does. But without the word only, we're left with a petition that says "do not smoke in a public house", while still keeping other anti-smoking intact - which does not weaken the cause of anti-smoking, and thus does not mislead people who think that the cause is strengthened by the petition.

Suppose that you are a person who thinks that the proposal takes the local ordinances to the state level. You're thinking "hey, that's a good proposal! we have some good, strong anti smoking restrictions here, and now they want to impose the same strong restrictions over the entire state. I'll sign that!"
But I know that the state law I'm proposing here is actually weaker than your local ordinances. Moreover, I know that the state law I propose would supersede (=replace) your local ordinances. So not only am I not propagating your strong local ordinances statewide, I'm actually replacing your strong laws with a weaker state law. If I don't tell you all this, but just say "hey - sign a petition to restrict smoking statewide", am I not misleading you?

Thanks Geva ... Superb !!!

navami wrote:Thanks Geva ... Superb !!!

Thank you for your kinds words.

Tracy, read this:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/07/ ... nt-to-life