Critical Reasoning

why the OA is B ?

is it A?

I see why it is B. It is B because there isn't any factor beside tax which B states, so it makes the argument strong.

I would go for B.

This option is eliminating any other factor that could have caused the decrease in sales of cigarettes.

So, definitely the decrease in sales was caused by Tax not because of new health info.

Thanks,
syr

B is a premise that can be used in the arguement. So, if health is not the reason, then the only reason sales dropped is tax increase

Hi guys.. I had difficulties in understanding why C is wrong..

We need to strengthen the argument that cost is the only factor that the sales descreased.

Option C if true would mean that smokers did not actually have an opputunity to stock up cigarettes in advance causing a decrease in sales. This is helpful in strengthening the argument.

Or is this flawed reasoning ?

How do you negate option D?

Isnt it a strong contender? please explain.

Hi dumb.doofus

The argument is that "the increase in cost of cigarette is the reason for decrease in sales"

Option D weakens this by saying that it is actually "the decrease in income" and not the" increase in cig prices" which caused the decrease in sales.

So according to option D , if ppl still had the same income then even increase in prices would not have affected the sales.

raghavsarathy wrote:Hi dumb.doofus

The argument is that "the increase in cost of cigarette is the reason for decrease in sales"

Option D weakens this by saying that it is actually "the decrease in income" and not the" increase in cig prices" which caused the decrease in sales.

So according to option D , if ppl still had the same income then even increase in prices would not have affected the sales.

Got it.. thanks man..

raghavsarathy wrote:Hi guys.. I had difficulties in understanding why C is wrong..

We need to strengthen the argument that cost is the only factor that the sales descreased.

Option C if true would mean that smokers did not actually have an opputunity to stock up cigarettes in advance causing a decrease in sales. This is helpful in strengthening the argument.

Or is this flawed reasoning ?

Your reasoning for option C needs some additional assumptions and thus goes out of the scope of the argument. "opputunity to stock up cigarettes in advance causing a decrease in sales" is something that you have assumed and this trend or behavior is not hinted in the argument. So it is out of scope.
You are right when you say "We need to strengthen the argument that cost is the only factor that the sales descreased" and the best way to strengthen an argument is by voiding any other form of reasoning which is exactly what B does here.

Hence B is the correct answer

Thanks Hari.. I understood now.. B is more straightforward in providing a reason for the decrease in cig sales namely "health info "

California4jx wrote:why the OA is B ?

If you assume that the information about health risks of smoking stays unchanged among public then one factor(ceteris paribus) must change the demand for cigarretes that is the price of a one packet of cigarrete (thus tax on a packet of cigarrete)

Can someone please tell why E is wrong...

Does it

a) out of scope.
b) Requires extra assumption.
c) or there is some other reason.

goelmohit2002 wrote:Can someone please tell why E is wrong...

Does it

a) out of scope.
b) Requires extra assumption.
c) or there is some other reason.

E is actually weakening the argument. If new types of cigs were available, it justifies that the sales decreased. Instead of closing the hole of an assumption, it is giving an alternate explanation.
Hence the ans is B.

Hi guys,

received a pm asking me to post.

This is a classic causal argument. The author's evidence establishes a correlation between two things. A correlation can arise in one of two ways on the GMAT (and in real life):

1)Temporally: either A precedes B (or B precedes A); or

2)Simultaneously: A and B occur together.

The author then uses the correlation to conclude a relationship of causation exists between those two things, ie, either A causes B or the other way around.

The necessary assumption in all of these arguments is that there are no other causes. This is a necessary assumption because if there were another cause, then the author's claim of causation is not necessarily correct.

If this were a weaken question, then we would find an answer choice that would attack this assumption.

The most common way this assumption gets attacked is an answer choice suggesting that there is some other cause.

A very common way it gets strengthened is an answer choice negating another cause. Once an alternative explanation has been removed, it is more likely that the cause argued for by the author is the real cause. (And because it is more likely, it is strengthened).

Strategically, a great thing to do here is to use the Kaplan denial test. In a strengthen question, if you have an answer choice you are unsure about, then deny the choice. If the argument is now (after denial of the choice) clearly weakened, then this is the correct answer. And a good time to do it is when you are in a strengthen question, and you have a choice you are not sure about. Another good indicator is if the answer choice uses words like "not" or "no".

Let's apply all this to this question.

Step one of the Kaplan method: Read the stem. Okay, so it is a strengthen question.

Step two: analyze the passage stimulus:

We have a correlation between taxes (A) and greater dip in cigarette sales (B). Does this establish that the taxes caused the dip in sales?

Nope.

Yet, that is what the author is concluding. So, he is assuming there are no other causes.

Step three: make a prediction. Say to yourself: "The assumption is no other causes. This is a strengthen question. I need to find an answer choice that backs this assumption up. I will look for a choice that negates a possible alternative cause (takes away an alternative explanation) for the drop in cigarette sales. An answer choice that says that the drop in cigarette sales wasn't due to something else."

Step four: Aggressively scan for a match:

Choice A: Definitely a weakener, nix

Choice B: hmmm "information about smoking health problems unchanged". This is negative language ("unchanged"), let's deny this. What if the information available about smoking health problems DID change. Well, they can't take information away, so if the information changed, then more people would know more facts about smoking health problems.

That could clearly be an alternative explanation for why cigarette sales went down. It wasn't the taxes, instead it could have been increased awareness of the health evils of smoking.

Because the denial of B clearly weakens, choice B is the correct answer to the strengthen question.


Notice that because we have found a match to our prediction, there is no need to evaluate the remaining answer choices. We got the light bulb when we read choice B. And, if we still weren't quite sure, verifying our reasoning for choice B's being correctness is far better (ie, quicker, more score-maximizing) than drowning in the indeterminate murkiness of all the trap answer choices. Predicting and matching to the right answer is better than coming up with four reasons for why the four wrong answers are wrong.