Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
After just 3 months of studying with the TTP GMAT Focus course, Conner scored an incredible 755 (Q89/V90/DI83) on the GMAT Focus. In this live interview, he shares how he achieved his outstanding 755 (100%) GMAT Focus score on test day.
In this conversation with Ankit Mehra, IESE MBA and CEO & Co-Founder, of GyanDhan, we will discuss how prospective MBA students can finance their MBA education with education loans and scholarships.
Grab 20% off any Target Test Prep GMAT Focus plan during our Flash Sale. Just enter the coupon code FLASH20 at checkout to save up to $320. The offer ends on Tuesday, April 30.
What do András from Hungary, Pablo from Mexico, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Rishab from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
What do András from Hungary, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Saahil from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
24 Apr 2013, 05:04
14
Kudos
19
Bookmarks
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
14%
(02:34)
correct
86%
(02:45)
wrong
based on 1011
sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a judgement that allowed the estate of a deceased smoker to recover a small pecuniary amount against a large contingent of tobacco companies. This monetary judgement, however small, opened a floodgate of litigation against the tobacco industry. Heretofore the issue of proximate cause allowed cigarette companies to escape liability for wrongful death lawsuits to long-time smokers. But now spurred by the Supreme Court decision, plaintiffs from every state filed multimillion dollar lawsuits; attorneys brought actions on behalf of class action clients, and large coalitions of states banded together to file billion dollar lawsuits in federal courts. The state coalitions offered statistical evidence that soaring state health costs in treating constituents for smoking-related illnesses-such as lung cancer and heart disease-should now be borne by the tobacco industry. The states cited the recent cases that demonstrated the causal link between smoking and health issues. Immediately, the tobacco industry opened settlement talks
Which of the following statistics that came to light during the settlement discussions between the states and tobacco companies, that, if true, tends to undermine the states’ statistical argument?
A) Statistics reflect that many more women than men are stricken by illnesses related to smoking.
B) According to medical research, certain types of lung cancer and heart disease may be caused by other external hazards.
C) Smokers have a shorter life expectancy on average than non-smokers.
D) The larger, more populated states incur more monetary expenses than the smaller, less populated states in treating tobacco- related illnesses.
E) Proximate cause remains a legal issue in many federal district courts that will hear tobacco cases well into the 21st century.
This Question is Locked Due to Poor Quality
Hi there,
The question you've reached has been archived due to not meeting our community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Looking for better-quality questions? Check out the 'Similar Questions' block below
for a list of similar but high-quality questions.
Want to join other relevant Problem Solving discussions? Visit our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
for the most recent and top-quality discussions.
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
24 Apr 2013, 07:14
14
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
I was stuck between (D) and (B), but I chose (B) because it gives us another culprit that could cause such diseases, therefore partially exonerating the tobacco industry.
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
03 Jun 2023, 09:55
6
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Answer is C and here's why.
The state coalition offered statistical evidence pointing that the soaring health costs from lung cancer/cardiac diseases were caused by smoking and therefore these costs should technically be handled by the tobacco companies.
Option C weakens this by saying that smokers on average don't live as long as other individuals......But what does that do to our reasoning?? If smokers have shorter life expectancy then this means that the other individuals that don't smoke will live longer and be an additional burden on the state's healthcare system. So if this is true then it is possible that the tobacco companies are actually alleviating the financial stress on the healthcare system by "inducing Shorter life expectancy in smokers"
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
24 Apr 2013, 07:50
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
it sud be E : Proximate cause remains a legal issue in many federal district courts that will hear tobacco cases well into the 21st century
it cannot be B as nowhere in the argument the state is alleging that all cases of lung cancer and heart disease are caused by smoking but yes if E is taken as true then it will definitely weaken the case of states as smoking companies can allege that primary cause of health issues are real point of contention !!
however i wud have felt better had E been just the following :Proximate cause remains a legal issue in many federal district courts i am not sure as why that extension is given to option E .nowhere in the argument time duration is into consideration
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
24 Apr 2013, 09:57
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
The paragraph looks long but only the last few lines are critical for answering the question.
The most important part is following: The states cited the recent cases that demonstrated the causal link between smoking and health issues. Immediately, the tobacco industry opened settlement talks. Note the point casual link.
This means that nothing sure yet about the proximate cause. Hence answer E is the correct choice as it undermines the states argument by using the weak point (casual link) in state argument and offering that reason still remains a legal issue.
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
25 Apr 2013, 07:22
neha24 wrote:
kindly put the OE as well n the source ?
Please excuse the badness of this question. I posted it because I found it tough and couldn't see why it's "C". Anywhy it's not an official question. Please take a look on these Kaplan's CR which are better :
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
29 Nov 2023, 13:23
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
I would recommend that no one spend time on this question. The text and answers require an understanding of outside concepts in law and health care far beyond what's reasonable, and C in no way undermines the argument. Further, the question stem isn't grammatically coherent. I'm glad folks trust Manhattan questions (this definitely isn't one of ours), but make sure you're spending most of your time on official material. If you've done it all, you're not reviewing your work thoroughly enough, or you should go take the GMAT already!
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
31 Dec 2023, 17:42
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Honestly, take my word for it: there is nothing to see here. I'd write an explanation if this question were worth studying, but it really isn't valid, nor is it sufficiently relevant to the test you are preparing for.
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
01 Mar 2024, 06:08
yalincan wrote:
I was stuck between (D) and (B), but I chose (B) because it gives us another culprit that could cause such diseases, therefore partially exonerating the tobacco industry.
I assumed the same and chose B, but it turns out that C is the correct answer.
This Question is Locked Due to Poor Quality
Hi there,
The question you've reached has been archived due to not meeting our community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Looking for better-quality questions? Check out the 'Similar Questions' block below
for a list of similar but high-quality questions.
Want to join other relevant Problem Solving discussions? Visit our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
for the most recent and top-quality discussions.
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a
[#permalink]
15 Mar 2024, 10:53
DmitryFarber wrote:
I would recommend that no one spend time on this question. The text and answers require an understanding of outside concepts in law and health care far beyond what's reasonable, and C in no way undermines the argument. Further, the question stem isn't grammatically coherent. I'm glad folks trust Manhattan questions (this definitely isn't one of ours), but make sure you're spending most of your time on official material. If you've done it all, you're not reviewing your work thoroughly enough, or you should go take the GMAT already!
Thanks for the response. I was really going through the responses to see if there was a logical answer which made sense to me, but yes, like you rightly said, there isn't much sense to the entire argument here.
Thank you!
gmatclubot
Re: In the mid-1990s the United States Supreme Court rendered a [#permalink]