Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in cau

A for sure

If smoking is equally prevalent among Norway teenagers despite the ban since 1975, then A can surely be concluded, as there is some other factor which affects the smoking habits of teenagers.

My answer is A.
(A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teen-agers.
>>Yes this is a safe conclusion.
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking.
>> This can not be confirmed from the passage.
(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
>> The passage talks about teen-age smoking habits and not about the overall tobacco consumption.
(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
>> There is no evidence in the passage for this.
(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.
>> There is no evidence in the passage for this.

When you have understood the general idea what the author is trying to depict, definitely not what your generalization or translation of the passage is, there is a quick trick for these kind of questions.

The stronger an answer option appears, the more the chances that it'll be wrong. Only A is smooth, advertising is not the only reason why teenagers smoke. All other options are stronger in driving their respective ideas. Never settle for a definitive conclusion, conclusions preferably should give some space, especially for questions of this type - Main point, Inference, Implies, suggests etc.

A. true since if it is the only factor there wouldnt be as many teens smoking
B. too strong so no
C. irrelevant
D. not based out of passage
E. we dont know that

A

New Gmat club project
Click here

(A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
this choice appropriatly address that ther may be another reason that influences the teenagers to takeup smoking since the banning of the commercial has not have significant effect .
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
Its not true to say that the advertisement does not paly any role but actually it plays role to a certain anount which is not discussed but there has to be another factor.
(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
Not true the banning of tobacoo adbertisement may have reduced the consumption but not eradicate entirely.
(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
may not be true always
(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.
this is a strengthening or weakening point but not a conclusion because strengtheners adn weakeners always have a conclusion in the argument.

Please provide a detailed explanation I am not getting how the OA is A.As per the option A Tabacco cannot be the only factor, but stimulus says the tobacco is not the factor even.

If tobacco advertising were the ONLY factor affecting the prevalence of smoking among teenagers, then we would expect smoking among teens to be LESS prevalent in countries that bad tobacco advertising (i.e. Norway).

Since this is NOT the case, we know that tobacco advertising CANNOT be the only factor.

Hi sayantanc2k, Daagh
What if the incidence of smoking among teenagers in Norway before 1975(ban enforcement) was considerably higher than that of other nations?. Subsequently, the enforcement of the ban might have helped reduce number of teenagers who smoke. Even though current numbers are at par with those of other nations, the ban definitely worked. This could be a possible scenario that option A fails to take into consideration.Thoughts?

VeritasKarishma Hi, Could you please compare option A and B in detail. Thanks!

GMATNinja Hi, When we say 'can't be the only factor', doesn't it mean that it is 'at least one of the factors'. So this won't option A go against the argument that it is one of the factors of smoking. Please correct me!

Let's say we are comparing Norway with Sweden.

Norway has banned tobacco advertising while Sweden has not.
In both countries 15% teenagers smoke.
Does it mean that advertising does not play a role? No. It may play a role. But it does mean that advertising is not the only thing that plays a role. There are other factors too.

Say, in Norway, cigarettes are available at vending machines on every street. So it is easy to buy cigarettes in Norway.
Say in Sweden, people need to show their I cards to buy cigarettes from controlled stores. So it is tough to buy cigarettes in Sweden.

So the 15% number could be a combined effect of the two policies - advertising and ease of buying.
Norway does not advertise but lets people buy easily.
Sweden does advertise but makes it difficult to buy.
The two factors play a role in how many teenagers smoke and kind of cancel each other in this example to give the same number of 15%.

Since one factor (advertising) is different in the two countries but the numbers are same, we can say that that is not the only controlling factor. But we cannot say that that factor has no role to play. Hope you understand.

As you suggest, the passage does NOT support the idea that tobacco advertising affects "the prevalence of smoking among teenagers." But for two reasons, this does not mean that (A) is wrong.

First, while the passage shows that tobacco advertising is not the ONLY factor, it doesn't prove that tobacco advertising has no effect at all on the prevalence of teenage smoking. Maybe tobacco advertising DOES affect the prevalence of teenage smoking, but there are more important factors that overwhelmed the ban on tobacco advertising in Norway. Maybe cigarettes got much cheaper in 1975 in Norway, so even though advertising was banned, smoking among teenagers got more prevalent. Who knows?

Bottom line: while tobacco advertising cannot be the ONLY factor, based on the passage, it still could be a factor.

Second, even if we assume that tobacco advertising has no affect whatsoever on teenage smoking (which we definitely CAN'T assume), (A) would still be correct.

Consider the following statement:

"The number of jelly beans I eat today is not the only factor affecting the weather."

Technically, that's a true statement. In fact, not only is eating jelly beans "not the only factor" affecting the weather, it's not a factor at all! But they are tasty.

Anyway, if tobacco advertising has no effect on teenage smoking, we can truthfully say "it is not the only factor." So (A) is correct.

I hope that helps!

Hi @VeritasKarishma: Reg. your explanation for option D, kindly help me understand how did we conclude "at least as many smoke" (highlighted, red)?

My understanding of the original statement in the passage " smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. " is that prevalence implies that proportion or % of teenage smokers in Norway is the same as in any other country (say India) that does not have a ban on smoking. For e.g. In both Norway and India, 20% smokers are teenagers. However, the actual number of teenagers could be more, less, or as many. Since we don't have any information about the number of teenagers to draw a comparison, I rejected option D.

The information states that despite a ban on tobacco advertising in Norway since 1975, smoking prevalence among teenagers is at least as high as in countries that do not ban such advertising. Based on this information, let's evaluate each option:

A. Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
This statement is a reliable conclusion that can be drawn from the information. Since smoking prevalence remains high among teenagers in Norway despite the ban on tobacco advertising, it suggests that other factors besides advertising play a role in influencing teen smoking behavior.

B. Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
This statement goes beyond the information provided. While the information suggests that the ban on tobacco advertising in Norway did not lead to a decrease in teen smoking prevalence, it does not definitively conclude that advertising plays no role. Other factors may still contribute to teen smoking behavior.

C. Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
This statement is a reliable conclusion that can be drawn from the information. The fact that smoking prevalence remains high in Norway despite the ban on tobacco advertising suggests that the ban alone may not effectively reduce tobacco consumption among teenagers.

D. More teenagers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
This statement goes beyond the information provided. The information does not provide a direct comparison between teenagers exposed to tobacco advertising and those who are not, so we cannot conclude that more teenagers smoke when not exposed to advertising.

E. Most teenagers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.
This statement is not supported by the information. The information does not provide any data or indication about the smoking behavior of teenagers who smoked in 1975 after the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.

Based on the above analysis, the most reliable conclusion that can be drawn from the information is (A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. This conclusion aligns with the fact that despite the ban on tobacco advertising in Norway, smoking prevalence among teenagers remains high, indicating that other factors contribute to teen smoking behavior.