|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, [#permalink]
 22 Aug 2007, 22:37
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, reducing nicotine intake, even by up to 50 percent, does not provide significant health benefits. The mortality rate for those who cut back was not lower than that for heavier smokers, nor did the “reducers” fare any better when it came to cardiovascular disease. Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above? A) The majority of study participants minimized their withdrawal symptoms through the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum. B) Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted. C) The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake. D) Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking. E) Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study. I will post OA shortly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 938
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Norwegian Smoker [#permalink]
22 Aug 2007, 23:07
natuago91 wrote: According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, reducing nicotine intake, even by up to 50 percent, does not provide significant health benefits. The mortality rate for those who cut back was not lower than that for heavier smokers, nor did the “reducers” fare any better when it came to cardiovascular disease.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above?
A) The majority of study participants minimized their withdrawal symptoms through the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum.
B) Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted.
C) The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake.
D) Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking.
E) Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study.
I will post OA shortly
C this would show that the participants were not at the same initial levels thus cannot be compared with each other.
I was also tempted by D though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I find B tempting:
the statement says reducing does not have a positive effect. What if the positive effect is neutralized by another factor, namely dining in places where smoking is permitted and thus the participants continue inhaling the toxic fumes.
This would undermine the conclusion that reducing is not beneficiary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 1278
Location: Madrid
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
68
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Norwegian Smoker [#permalink]
23 Aug 2007, 04:11
natuago91 wrote: According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, reducing nicotine intake, even by up to 50 percent, does not provide significant health benefits.
The mortality rate for those who cut back was not lower than that for heavier smokers, nor did the “reducers” fare any better when it came to cardiovascular disease.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above?
A) The majority of study participants minimized their withdrawal symptoms through the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum. B) Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted.
C) The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake.
D) Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking.
E) Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study.
I will post OA shortly
Their use of patches points to the possibility that their intake of nicotine was not cut in half
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 891
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 7
|
ronron wrote: I find B tempting:
the statement says reducing does not have a positive effect. What if the positive effect is neutralized by another factor, namely dining in places where smoking is permitted and thus the participants continue inhaling the toxic fumes.
This would undermine the conclusion that reducing is not beneficiary.
you cant assume it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 891
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 7
|
Re: CR - Norwegian Smoker [#permalink]
23 Aug 2007, 04:23
kevincan wrote: natuago91 wrote: According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, reducing nicotine intake, even by up to 50 percent, does not provide significant health benefits.
The mortality rate for those who cut back was not lower than that for heavier smokers, nor did the “reducers” fare any better when it came to cardiovascular disease.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above?
A) The majority of study participants minimized their withdrawal symptoms through the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum. B) Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted.
C) The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake.
D) Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking.
E) Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study.
I will post OA shortly Their use of patches points to the possibility that their intake of nicotine was not cut in half I am just questioning the interpretation of the question...
Would you look at the stem differently, if it were to ask "Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the validity of the study described above?
To me, A is attacking the validity (or may be representativeness) of the study, whereas the question is posed as "findings of the study".
I hope I made sense 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I was just discussing this as well (with my colleague at work) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 891
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 7
|
ronron wrote: I was just discussing this as well (with my colleague at work) I wish I could do that as well..
i took 2days from my holiday to prep a bit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 386
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
I am for C too
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
Re: CR - Norwegian Smoker [#permalink]
23 Aug 2007, 09:14
natuago91 wrote: According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, reducing nicotine intake, even by up to 50 percent, does not provide significant health benefits. The mortality rate for those who cut back was not lower than that for heavier smokers, nor did the “reducers” fare any better when it came to cardiovascular disease.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above?
A) The majority of study participants minimized their withdrawal symptoms through the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum.
This suggests that the use of nicotine was continued through other means.
B) Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted.
The possible effects of second hand smoke are invoked to trick us into believing the effect would be significant to curtail the benefits of reduced smoking
C) The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake.
I think it entices us to make our own assumptions of how reducing smoking would affect overall health depending on the length of pre-quitting exposure to smoking.
D) Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking.
Irrelevant. Passage does not investigate the effects of quitting smoking; only reduced smoking is discussed
E) Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study.
irrelevant
I will post OA shortly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 588
Location: Canada eh
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
30
[0], given: 0
|
Ughhh this one is really easy
A
Reduction in 50% doesn't do anything
but A says they didn't actually reduce intake by 50% because patches provide nicotine (you can assume this guys, GMAT people aren't stupid)
.............
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 50
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I think A as the participants never really stopped the use of nicotine. Whats the OA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
I think C is irrelevant....reducing intake by 50%,so initial intake doesn't matter according to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1560
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
155
[0], given: 1
|
vineetgupta wrote: I think C is irrelevant....reducing intake by 50%,so initial intake doesn't matter according to me.
For survey related questions, one of the 1st checks we need to do is to validate the study sample. Now, lets look at C.
I think what C means is that because the study participants all had varying initial intake, the study sample is contaminated and cannot be considered valid.
Because the study sample is not valid, the conclusion is probably wrong. So, C must be the answer.
My 2 cents...
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
ncprasad wrote: vineetgupta wrote: I think C is irrelevant....reducing intake by 50%,so initial intake doesn't matter according to me. For survey related questions, one of the 1st checks we need to do is to validate the study sample. Now, lets look at C. I think what C means is that because the study participants all had varying initial intake, the study sample is contaminated and cannot be considered valid. Because the study sample is not valid, the conclusion is probably wrong. So, C must be the answer. My 2 cents... I don't completely agree with this. If the initial intakes were different then those who smoked less than others should at least have scored marginally better. Also, since the initial intakes were different for different participants - some of them would have smoked less than the others and hence ought to have fared better..
May be I am unable to explain ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1560
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
155
[0], given: 1
|
dwivedys wrote: ncprasad wrote: vineetgupta wrote: I think C is irrelevant....reducing intake by 50%,so initial intake doesn't matter according to me. For survey related questions, one of the 1st checks we need to do is to validate the study sample. Now, lets look at C. I think what C means is that because the study participants all had varying initial intake, the study sample is contaminated and cannot be considered valid. Because the study sample is not valid, the conclusion is probably wrong. So, C must be the answer. My 2 cents... I don't completely agree with this. If the initial intakes were different then those who smoked less than others should at least have scored marginally better. Also, since the initial intakes were different for different participants - some of them would have smoked less than the others and hence ought to have fared better.. May be I am unable to explain ... I agree with your logic. But C refutes the conclusion not by directly contradicting it, but by attacking the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion. In other words, C does not contradict the conclusion that smokers did not benefit by cutting on the intake. Rather,it tries to establish that the methodology of the survey is incorrect. Think about this. If a survey publishes a logical result, but does not select the samples properly, it will still not be accepted even if everybody agrees that the result is most probably true.
Anyways, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 93
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
A looks like the best choice, though i am not sure.
because the study just indicates the reduced nicotine intake by 50%; so how can we be sure that the study hasn't already considered the nicotine intake through the patches and chewing gums in the calculation?
if A is not true then B it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 48
GMAT 1: Q V
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Norwegian Smoker [#permalink]
23 Aug 2007, 13:57
natuago91 wrote: According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, reducing nicotine intake, even by up to 50 percent, does not provide significant health benefits. The mortality rate for those who cut back was not lower than that for heavier smokers, nor did the “reducers” fare any better when it came to cardiovascular disease.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above?
A) The majority of study participants minimized their withdrawal symptoms through the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum.
B) Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted.
C) The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake.
D) Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking.
E) Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study.
I will post OA shortly
Is it 'A'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 181
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with B. To weaken the argument, we need to find out other causes which can neutralize the reduction in nicotine intake eg. passive smoking.
_________________
Regards
Subhen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 161
Schools: CBS, MIT, Kellogg, Wharton
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 5
|
I don't think it is A. A assumes that nicotine is the only element in cigaretes that is detrimental to health. Well, what about tar, carbon monoxide etc?
I would go with [b]B[/b]. It shows that the reduction in smoking in reality is not as big as it is believed to be (by the people conducting the study).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
