In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania's annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) All health care in Gandania is government-funded.
(B) Implementing the proposed laws is not likely to cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.
(C) The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.
(D) Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.
(E) No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use.
What is wrong with the other options? Can experts explain? Thanks
OA A
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
In Gandania
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
-
DavidG@VeritasPrep
- 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
Conclusion: Gandania cannot afford to implement anti-smoking regulationlheiannie07 wrote:In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania's annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) All health care in Gandania is government-funded.
(B) Implementing the proposed laws is not likely to cause a significant increase in the amount of tobacco Gandania exports.
(C) The percentage of revenue Gandania receives from tobacco sales has remained steady in recent years.
(D) Profits from tobacco sales far surpass any other single source of revenue for the Gandanian government.
(E) No government official in Gandania has ever previously proposed laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use.
What is wrong with the other options? Can experts explain? Thanks
OA A
Premises: Gandania gets 10% of its revenue from tobacco sales; smoking-related health problems have risen
If we're trying to weaken the conclusion, we want to show that Gandania can afford the regulation. Well, if the regulation is going to reduce revenue that the government would have received from tobacco sales, then the there must be some kind of ancillary benefit to the regulations, perhaps a reduction in expenses in another domain.
This is what A gives us. If smoking is causing health-related problems, and the government has to pay for all health care, then presumably, it's expensive for the government if a good deal of the population smokes. Thus, if the regulations reduce smoking rates, the money saved in health care expense may offset the profits forgone from lower tobacco sales.
