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.

Is it A ?

aj5105 wrote: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.

IMO A) by POE.
All the rest cannot be concluded concretely.

yes i agree. (A) should be the correct answer. As D & E are outrightly eliminated. C does not talk about teenagers. Choice is between A and B. in which A seems to be more correct.

aj5105 wrote: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.

IMO A. OA please??

aj5105 wrote: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.

IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..

ketkoag wrote:

aj5105 wrote: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.

IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..

But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.

IMO - A

cata1yst wrote:

ketkoag wrote:

aj5105 wrote: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.

IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..

But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.

please explain me, why not C..i think i'm a bit confused here.....

OA (A)

ketkoag,

Drawing a conclusion is nothing but drawing an inference. The answer choice for drawing an inference question must be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.

Can we say (C) must be absolutely true? We cannot.

May be banning tobacco advertising had reduced the consumption of tobacco in some teens (while new teenagers had inculcated the habit)

ketkoag wrote:

cata1yst wrote:

ketkoag wrote:

aj5105 wrote: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.

IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..

But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.

please explain me, why not C..i think i'm a bit confused here.....

aj5105 wrote:OA (A)

ketkoag,

Drawing a conclusion is nothing but drawing an inference. The answer choice for drawing an inference question must be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.

Can we say (C) must be absolutely true? We cannot.

May be banning tobacco advertising had reduced the consumption of tobacco in some teens (while new teenagers had inculcated the habit)

ketkoag wrote:

cata1yst wrote:

ketkoag wrote:

aj5105 wrote: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.

IMO E should be the answer.
A cannot be true always.. let's say Tobacco advertising can be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking, and stimuli says that advertising can help them start or continue smoking, but it is never mentioned that it can force them quit it. so if a is false then what about the teens that were smoking in 1975, they never quit..
so it is stated in E that Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented and we can completely infer this from the stimuli..

But those that were teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers now. How can we bridge the gap?

I think A.

please explain me, why not C..i think i'm a bit confused here.....

got it.... i missed something at the first place but now i got it..
i was thinking way too much about this. A is the most direct answer but i was just trying to get whether other options can be atleast true... E is not mentioned in the passage at all.
thanks..

Looking at it now, E makes sense