Ad & smoking

[crackgmat007]

Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will not reduce the number of young people who smoke. They know that cigarettes exist and they know how to get them. They do not need the advertisements to supply that information.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?
(A) Seeing or hearing an advertisement for a product tends to increase people’s desire for that product.
(B) Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will cause an increase in advertisements in places where cigarettes are sold.
(C) Advertisements in the mass media have been an exceedingly large part of the expenditures of the tobacco companies.
(D) Those who oppose cigarette use have advertised against it in the mass media ever since cigarettes were found to be harmful.
(E) Older people tend to be less influenced by mass-media advertisements than younger people tend to be.

Pls clarify this question. IMO-C...looks like the answer is E. Can anyone explain the logic behind?

[PAB2706]

I don't like any options...

E sounds good only bcos of the second caluse tht " young ppl r more influenced by mass media "

The conclusion of the argument is that banning will not help in reducing young ppl smoking... If v negate the second clause stated above then the argument falls apart... Hence the right answer.

But I dnt like the comparison made with old ppl bcos it then goes a lil bit out of scope.

[agoyal2]

IMO A. E does seem out of scope as PAB2706 mentioned.

Whats the source of the problem?

[mehravikas]

E and C are definitely irrelevant. Answer should be - A

[V16]

i completely agree with PAB2706. But the answer should be A.

E is out of scope and also it says younger people are influenced by ads but did not mention whether they react positively or negatively.
All other choices are irrelavent.

[vinaynp]

Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will not reduce the number of young people who smoke. They know that cigarettes exist and they know how to get them. They do not need the advertisements to supply that information.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?
(A) Seeing or hearing an advertisement for a product tends to increase people’s desire for that product.
(B) Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will cause an increase in advertisements in places where cigarettes are sold.
(C) Advertisements in the mass media have been an exceedingly large part of the expenditures of the tobacco companies.
(D) Those who oppose cigarette use have advertised against it in the mass media ever since cigarettes were found to be harmful.
(E) Older people tend to be less influenced by mass-media advertisements than younger people tend to be.

Pls clarify this question. IMO-C...looks like the answer is E. Can anyone explain the logic behind?

The argument would be most weakened if we can show that mass-media advertisements increases the number of young people who smoke

(A) People is very generic and does not cater specifically to young people.

(B) Out of scope.

(C) Large part of expenditure doesn't imply effect on young people.

(D) Out of scope.

(E) The statement proves Mass-media advertisements has an effect on young people. Hence, the answer.


A) and E) are very close. However, we need to keep the young people in mind.

[thetrystero]

Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will not reduce the number of young people who smoke. They know that cigarettes exist and they know how to get them. They do not need the advertisements to supply that information.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?
(A) Seeing or hearing an advertisement for a product tends to increase people’s desire for that product.
(B) Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will cause an increase in advertisements in places where cigarettes are sold.
(C) Advertisements in the mass media have been an exceedingly large part of the expenditures of the tobacco companies.
(D) Those who oppose cigarette use have advertised against it in the mass media ever since cigarettes were found to be harmful.
(E) Older people tend to be less influenced by mass-media advertisements than younger people tend to be.

My choice: A
advertisement-> increase in desire->increase in number of smokers
this implies lack of advertisement -> lack of desire probe -> decrease in number of smokers

[Musicolo]

Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will not reduce the number of young people who smoke. They know that cigarettes exist and they know how to get them. They do not need the advertisements to supply that information.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?
(A) Seeing or hearing an advertisement for a product tends to increase people’s desire for that product.
(B) Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will cause an increase in advertisements in places where cigarettes are sold.
(C) Advertisements in the mass media have been an exceedingly large part of the expenditures of the tobacco companies.
(D) Those who oppose cigarette use have advertised against it in the mass media ever since cigarettes were found to be harmful.
(E) Older people tend to be less influenced by mass-media advertisements than younger people tend to be.

Pls clarify this question. IMO-C...looks like the answer is E. Can anyone explain the logic behind?

Dont really like any of the options. However, I would go for E.
A - tends to increase doesnt mean that it necessarily increases
B - irrelevant
C - out of scope
D - out of scope
E - young people are influenced by mass media hence, banning cigarette advertisements in the mess media will influence young peoples' decision to consume cigarettes -wekanes the argument
E is also not convincing but its closest to weakening the statement

[vaishalijain7]

musicolo, 'E' also says 'tends to be' than how can we reject 'A' for the same reason? please explain.

[amitchell]

Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will not reduce the number of young people who smoke. They know that cigarettes exist and they know how to get them. They do not need the advertisements to supply that information.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following were true?
(A) Seeing or hearing an advertisement for a product tends to increase people’s desire for that product.
(B) Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will cause an increase in advertisements in places where cigarettes are sold.
(C) Advertisements in the mass media have been an exceedingly large part of the expenditures of the tobacco companies.
(D) Those who oppose cigarette use have advertised against it in the mass media ever since cigarettes were found to be harmful.
(E) Older people tend to be less influenced by mass-media advertisements than younger people tend to be.

Pls clarify this question. IMO-C...looks like the answer is E. Can anyone explain the logic behind?

This is a fine question and the answer is (A).

The argument assumes that information that cigarettes exist and how to get them – and no other advertising-related factor – is the determinant of how many young people smoke. You can identify this assumption quickly by matching keywords such as “number of young people” and the information keywords in the conclusion and in the evidence.

Based on the assumption, you can predict a weakener: that some other factor in advertisements might lead young people to smoke. Something else about ads. That’s (A). In fact, if (A) is true, the argument is highly flawed – the logic used to draw the conclusion, based on the evidence, is incorrect.

[Musicolo]

musicolo, 'E' also says 'tends to be' than how can we reject 'A' for the same reason? please explain.

True. Still I would go for E (what is the correct answer anyway, is it E?)

I understand GMAT instructor's argument but I would still go with E.
One must go around A to see how it weakens the argument but E is more clear on this. It is simply saying that young people are influenced by mass media hence not seeing cigarette adverts will lead to their decrease in consumption - weakens the argument.
In A, you must turn around the A answe by saying "not seeing or hearing an advertisement for a product tends to decrease people's desire for that product" hence, if young people don't see the advertisment, they will not consume cigarettes - weakens tha argument.
E is clearly more direct and in the exam when faced with this question, one is not given the privilege of thinking about it for ten minutes and discussing it. My initial response when time constrained would be E.

[thetrystero]

@crackgmat007: please post OA and source.

[amitchell]

E) compares the effect of ads on older people vs. younger people. But the argument concerns only whether there will be an effect on younger people (specifically for the information-related reasons stated). E) is out of scope; it doesn't touch on the argument.

[crackgmat007]

I guess the answer is E. I got this question from the web.

[vinaynp]

I guess the answer is E. I got this question from the web.

The OA is [spoiler] A) [/spoiler] from 1000 RC