BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

ban on smoking

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:57 am

ban on smoking

by nik08 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:21 pm
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.
34
(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


Can't really figure out the best answer . can someone help?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:56 am
Thanked: 1 times

by s_kaks » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:17 pm
IMO A is the best ans.

OA pls?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:57 am

by nik08 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:47 pm
yep, it is A, Can you please explain ?
Thanks !
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:34 pm

by aglope » Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:23 pm
I'll give it my best shot.

The reason A is correct is because the set of facts provided state that in a country in which there is a ban on smoking, smoking is as prevalent as in other countries in which there is no such ban. That means that people smoke regardless of advertisements or not. You can then conclude that there are other factors which influence whether a person smokes or not. (For example, television actors smoking, family members smoking, friends....etc.)

We can't say that B is correct because we don’t know if it does or if it doesn’t. All we know is that it doesn’t play a role in the country where it has been banned; however, what about a country where it has not been banned.

We can't say that C is correct because we don’t know whether or not the number of people smoking decreased once the ban took effect in the mentioned country. All we know is that smoking is as prevalent as in other countries without the ban. Its possible that the number decreased but we cannot prove it did or it didn't with the information provided.

We can't say D is correct because the set of facts provided does not provide us with enough information to conclude this. All we know is that smoking is as prevalent in one country as another. The information does not distinguish between teenagers and others.

As for E, we don’t know the teenagers stopped smoking. All we know is that smoking is as prevalent in the country with the ban as any other country without the ban. However, we do not know whether those who smoked in 1975 stopped. They could have stopped. There is nothing saying that they did not stop.

I hope this helps.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:17 am
Location: lahore, pakistan

by hamxa » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:02 pm
Can B be ruled out as it talks of only advertisement and not tobacco advertisement

Please respond.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 12 times

by vijay_venky » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:32 pm
There are two reasons for which it could be discarded

1. The conclusion should always result from the premises, in other words a conclusion must be true.
Now with option B, nothing in the argument proves that the Advertising does not play a role. So this can never be the conclusion.

2. As you mentioned it mentions the advertising on a whole and not specific to tobacco, but this is a finer information.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:17 am
Location: lahore, pakistan

by hamxa » Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:59 pm
I agree with you Vijay.

The word NOT in choice B makes a very strong statement and we can not deduce this from the argument.
Infact, in most of the CR of these types, such strong statements are almost always wrong. (same goes for RC)


Thanks...
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:50 pm

by haveto » Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:05 pm
Thanks Vijay.

I think had "B" been about "tobacco advertising" it would have been a better choice than A because we dont have any evidence to show that advertising could be one of the factors for propagating smoking.

Same problem with C, D, and E - there is no evidence.

In that case none of the choices is absolutely correct. This is a OG question and I would have chosen A if I had to but am not really convinced. Experts - can you please look into it?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:43 pm
Because this is an inference question, we can be partial to choice A and impartial to choice B for the simple reason that choice A uses language more tentatively than does choice B (choice B is more extreme than choice A).

Choice A reads "..cannot be the only factor..." So choice A rules out "only". So, choice A is tentative (not extreme).

Choice B, on the other hand reads "...does not" which is more extreme.

In inference questions, avoid extreme choices. A corollary: in inference questions, be partial to tentative choices.

Examples of extreme language (avoid):
--never
--always
--necessarily
--cannot
--only

Examples of tentative language (partial):
--sometimes
--at least
--not necessarily
--not the only
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1