|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[1] , given: 66
|
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial [#permalink]
 27 Sep 2010, 20:02
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
20% (01:12) correct
80% (01:25) wrong based on 0 sessions
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? a) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking c) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. d) More teenagers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. e) Most teenagers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented. Nice question for practice. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 230
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
42
[1] , given: 2
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
I am going with A. What is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Status: What's your raashee?
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1847
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
176
[2] , given: 52
|
2
This post received
KUDOS
suyashjhawar wrote: Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? a) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking c) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. d) More teenagers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. e) Most teenagers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented. Nice question for practice. 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
_________________
If you like my answers please +1 kudos!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
56
[0], given: 25
|
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? We can cancel out C, D & E as they cannot be directly deduced from the information above. We are left with A & B. a) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. Although A seems right at first look, it says that 'Tobacco advertising' may be one of the factors and not the only factor that causes teenagers to start or continue smoking. But Tobacco advertising has been COMPLETELY banned in Norway, yet there are people who start smoking, so it is not proved to be a factor. b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking I'm going for B. Although it states an extreme view, it seems right to me in this context. B for me. Whats the OA?
_________________
Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.
Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2010
Posts: 19
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
suyashjhawar wrote: Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? a) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking c) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. d) More teenagers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. e) Most teenagers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented. Nice question for practice. If we are drawing a conclusion it needs to be derived from the stimuli. A) is too extreme. We dont need to talking of other factors here as the passage does not mention it. B) Contender but going offway in to start and continue smoking. Its like past and present and future. C) Apt straight to the point and the most reliable conclusion i See D) Its more extreme and offway. does not state the conclusion clearly though related. E) This is off the record and is flawed. People who smoked in 1975 wont remain teenagers all the while. C is my bet. Let me know what you think. OA???
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1756
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 50
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 108
|
+1 A
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 540
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
64
[0], given: 46
|
shaselai wrote: suyashjhawar wrote: Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? a) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking c) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. d) More teenagers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. e) Most teenagers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented. Nice question for practice. 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 I'm going with A, nice response and avatar shaselai.
_________________
It's a dawg eat dawg world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2010
Posts: 19
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
any chances of giving out the OA????
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 203
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 12
|
IMO it is b. b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking >> Passage talks about teenagers smoking and this statement is a proper conclusion to derive.
_________________
+1Kudos, if this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 66
|
OA A
If tobacco advertising were the only factor that affected teenage smoking, there would be a difference in the prevalence of smoking between countries that ban such advertising and those that do not. But since there is no difference, so tobacco advt cannot be the only factor. Hence A.
Since no info is given about what effect, if any, the Norwegian ban on tobacco advertising had on teenage smoking in Norway, none of choices B through E can be concluded since each makes some claim about the effects of tobacco advertising or of banning such advertising, on teenage smoking or on tobacco consumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 229
Location: Boston
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 5
|
I'm going with (B) on this one. EDIT: The OA was posted as (A) as I was posting this. I understand the fault in my logic - we have no idea what the prevalence of smoking among teenagers was when the advertising ban was instituted, so we can't conclusively state that the ban didn't reduce smoking. Just because it's more prevalent after the ban than in places where advertising isn't banned doesn't mean that it wasn't even more prevalent before the ban. If it was, the rate would have declined. Great question. suyashjhawar wrote: Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? Many people claim that tobacco advertising is a major factor leading teenagers to smoke. If they're correct, then the complete elimination of advertising should lead to a big decline in teenagers smoking - or, at the very least, some kind of decline. However, advertising has been completely banned in Norway for 35 years, and yet teenagers there smoke at an even higher rate. This is evidence that the claims are false, and that advertising is not a factor whatsoever.a) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. This correctly states that there must be other factors, but still says that advertising is one of them - when the evidence suggests that it isn't.b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking Yes - if it did play a role, then the teenagers in Norway would at least smoke somewhat less than in places where advertising still happens.c) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. Passage discusses teenagers only, not the overall consumption of tobacco among all people.d) More teenagers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. You can't use the evidence to state this causality.e) Most teenagers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented. Teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers, so this argument doesn't follow.Nice question for practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 104
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 13
|
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 508
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
50
[0], given: 66
|
TehJay wrote: I'm going with (B) on this one. EDIT: The OA was posted as (A) as I was posting this. I understand the fault in my logic - we have no idea what the prevalence of smoking among teenagers was when the advertising ban was instituted, so we can't conclusively state that the ban didn't reduce smoking. Just because it's more prevalent after the ban than in places where advertising isn't banned doesn't mean that it wasn't even more prevalent before the ban. If it was, the rate would have declined. Great question. suyashjhawar wrote: Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teenagers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above? Many people claim that tobacco advertising is a major factor leading teenagers to smoke. If they're correct, then the complete elimination of advertising should lead to a big decline in teenagers smoking - or, at the very least, some kind of decline. However, advertising has been completely banned in Norway for 35 years, and yet teenagers there smoke at an even higher rate. This is evidence that the claims are false, and that advertising is not a factor whatsoever.a) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. This correctly states that there must be other factors, but still says that advertising is one of them - when the evidence suggests that it isn't.b) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking Yes - if it did play a role, then the teenagers in Norway would at least smoke somewhat less than in places where advertising still happens.c) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. Passage discusses teenagers only, not the overall consumption of tobacco among all people.d) More teenagers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. You can't use the evidence to state this causality.e) Most teenagers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented. Teenagers in 1975 are no longer teenagers, so this argument doesn't follow.Nice question for practice. Thanks TehJay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
