Critical Reasoning

All, I'm throwing in another OG10 problem for discussion. Let me know what your answer is and why.

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.

I would go for B, but the OA is A. If someone agrees with the OA the could you please explain why?

Thanks
BlueMentor

It is indeed (A).

A. Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teen-agers.
In other words, where ever tobacco advertising exists, it MIGHT still be a factor that encourages teenagers to take up smoking. We cannot prove that it does not at all play a factor. What we can conclude though is that advertising is not the only factor because of premise of the question

B. Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking.
We do not have any proof of this. In countries where Tobacco advertising does exist, the teenagers might be getting influenced.

Hope it helps.

B says "advertising" not " tobacco advertising" which is out of scope.

Thanks,
lvincy

Answer A seems to be logical one out of other answer choices