Critical Reasoning

A system-wide county school anti-smoking education program was instituted last year. The program was clearly a success. Last year, the incidence of students smoking on school premises decreased by over 70 percent.

Which of the following if true, would most seriously weaken the argument in the passage?

(A) The author of this statement is a school system official hoping to generate good publicity for the anti-smoking program.

(B) Most student who smoke stopped smoking on school premises last year continued to smoke when away from school.

(C) Last year, another policy change made it much easier for students to leave and return to school grounds during the school day.

(D) The school system spent more on anti-smoking education programs last year than it did in all previous years.

(E) The amount of time students spent in anti-smoking education programs last year resulted in a reduction of in-class hours devoted to academic subjects.

I believe A, D and E are out of scope.

B seems to concur with the central message in the argument -
it says students did not smoke on premises.

C weakens the argument. If the other policy directly led to a decrease
in the number of students smoking on premises, the anti-smoking
program could not have helped and so could not have been a success.

OA is C. You are right. I got it. Thanks!

Isn't C an irrelevant point unless you combine it with something about students smoking away from school?

So shouldn't it be B? I'm saying this with the assumption that the "anti-smoking education program.....was clearly a success" is the main argument.

So smoking away from campus is contradictory to anti-smoking.

I also think B should be the answer as it says the program was successful.However it was success only inside the school premises .
Please explain how C is the answer as it seems irrevelant

[email protected] wrote:I also think B should be the answer as it says the program was successful.However it was success only inside the school premises .
Please explain how C is the answer as it seems irrevelant

The argument is concerned only with smoking on the premises. If the students stopped smoking on the premises, then the program was a success (irrespective of whether the students smoked outside the premises). B only seems to strengthen this. C is the right choice.

but C states implies that students smoked off school premises

Last year,the incidence of students smoking on school premises decreased by over 70%.

C)Last year, another policy change made it much easier for students to leave and return to school grounds during the school day.

Assume they can go outside then smoke and return back to school then they do not smoke at the school and this will not be arised from the policy mentioned in the paragraph.

givemeanid wrote:A system-wide county school anti-smoking education program was instituted last year. The program was clearly a success. Last year, the incidence of students smoking on school premises decreased by over 70 percent.

Which of the following if true, would most seriously weaken the argument in the passage?

(A) The author of this statement is a school system official hoping to generate good publicity for the anti-smoking program.

(B) Most student who smoke stopped smoking on school premises last year continued to smoke when away from school.

(C) Last year, another policy change made it much easier for students to leave and return to school grounds during the school day.

(D) The school system spent more on anti-smoking education programs last year than it did in all previous years.

(E) The amount of time students spent in anti-smoking education programs last year resulted in a reduction of in-class hours devoted to academic subjects.

Will go with B.

Agree, should be B. C is a good option only if B is true. Whats the sourrce of the OA

[email protected] wrote:I also think B should be the answer as it says the program was successful.However it was success only inside the school premises .
Please explain how C is the answer as it seems irrevelant

Success is measured here by removing smokers off school premises- b strengthens since it achieves that - irrespective of whether or not they continue smoking outside. I think the trap is to let your knowledge influence the success here...

C says that it was not the education policy but another policy that got the smokers off school premises hence weakens.

Btw I fell for the trap also but it clicked after

Pls correct if my reasoning is off.

givemeanid wrote:A system-wide county school anti-smoking education program was instituted last year. The program was clearly a success. Last year, the incidence of students smoking on school premises decreased by over 70 percent.

Which of the following if true, would most seriously weaken the argument in the passage?

(A) The author of this statement is a school system official hoping to generate good publicity for the anti-smoking program.

(B) Most student who smoke stopped smoking on school premises last year continued to smoke when away from school.

(C) Last year, another policy change made it much easier for students to leave and return to school grounds during the school day.

(D) The school system spent more on anti-smoking education programs last year than it did in all previous years.

(E) The amount of time students spent in anti-smoking education programs last year resulted in a reduction of in-class hours devoted to academic subjects.

B...

author is unequivocal in conclusion that anti-smoking program was a success. he uses word "clearly." All we need to weaken argument is a crack in "clearly." If students are smoking away from school, then program is not "clearly" a success. It might be partially, but not "clearly"..

upon review, C weakens. Because it focuses on off campus vs. on campus and points out that another program caused this...very tricky argh.

Not a great GMAT question.

although this argument is based on causal relation- 2 events which happen at the same time are in causal relation-this weaken question do not make us find out a event which destroy the causal relation. Instead,the author makes us find an answer which destroy the evidence not destroy the reasoning

C is correct

I feel its B.

1. Never mentioned the aim of the program was to prevent smoking from school premises. It says anti-smoking program
2. We don't know whether school ground comes outside 'school premises'.

Thanks,
V