Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 30 Aug 2016, 15:32

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 799
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 83

Kudos [?]: 684 [0], given: 56

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2009, 10:33
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (02:06) correct 36% (01:17) wrong based on 444 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers 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 teen-agers 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 teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2009, 10:42
I'm going with B.

A) This sounds ok, but the only thing that doesn’t work is the word “only.” The argument says that those people who say advertising plays a crucial role are wrong. Those people say it’s a crucial reason, not the only reason.
B) I think this is the answer. There are people who say adv. plays a crucial role. The argument is saying that adv. does not play a role b/c banning advertising had no effect.
C) This may be true and is a good false answer choice. The argument deals with the causes of tobacco use, not what would happen if advertising was banned. Also, this ans. choice is too broad (the argument is about teens, but this ans. choice doesn’t specify a group).
D) Doesn’t follow from argument. Argument is saying advertising doesn’t play a significant role.
E) This is not relevant. The argument is talking about prevalence of tobacco use among teens today. The teenagers from 1975 don’t matter.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 303
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2009, 19:27
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.
Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 799
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 83

Kudos [?]: 684 [0], given: 56

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2009, 23:03
bigoyal wrote:
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.

Why not option B?
_________________
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 172
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 22 [2] , given: 3

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2009, 23:33
2
KUDOS
bigoyal wrote:
bigoyal wrote:
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.

Why not option B?

This is a "must be true" question, so all we need for an answer to be wrong is to show the slightest doubt in that answer. In these cases, we usually (not always) want to pick the weakest, most moderate conclusion available to us. (A) is a much weaker option, and it can't be proven false.

(B) seems a little extreme. It is suggesting that ads do NOT play ANY role in causing teens to start smoking ANYWHERE; yet the only "evidence" for this conclusion is the example of one country (Norway).
Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 159
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2009, 01:54
Agree with A, considered C but discounted since C doesn't cater to the teenage factor.
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 32
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Schools: going to Melbourne Business School
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2010, 14:07
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers 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 teen-agers 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 teen-agers.
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking.
34
(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.

OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
A

I ruled out B because it talks of advertisement only and not tobacco advertisement. Is that the right approach. This Q is from OG 10 and it does not state this method.
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2010, 15:10
(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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 366
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 22

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2010, 16:04
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.
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

Intern
Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2010, 23:06
(A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teen-agers. Correct
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking. The argument is about Tobacco advertising, not advertising alone.

(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco. Strong conclusion(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are. Not supported bty the argument
(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented. Out of scope
Manager
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Posts: 193
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2010, 21:14
hamza wrote:
I ruled out B because it talks of advertisement only and not tobacco advertisement. Is that the right approach. This Q is from OG 10 and it does not state this method.

to an extent! B is also a good option for the answer.The questions asks for the most reliable conclusion. A and B are good choices for the answer and b/n them, A is the better option.
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 505
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 100 [1] , given: 66

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2010, 20:02
1
KUDOS
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.
Current Student
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: 23

Kudos [?]: 237 [2] , given: 52

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2010, 20:31
2
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
_________________

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2010, 21:21
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: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 00:04
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???
Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 09:08
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: 505
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 66

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 10:19
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: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 10:36
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.
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 505
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 66

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 11:39
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
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 546
GPA: 3.4
WE: General Management (Non-Profit and Government)
Followers: 102

Kudos [?]: 769 [2] , given: 297

### Show Tags

20 Nov 2013, 05:57
2
KUDOS
New Gmat club project

Theory Articles of Main point/Conclusion questions

Thursdays with Ron

Kaplan
http://gmat.kaptest.com/2011/09/07/how- ... gFHrI.dpbs

_________________

General Mistakes to Avoid on the GMAT
TOP 10 articles on Time Management on the GMAT
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

Rules for posting on the verbal forum

Re: Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial   [#permalink] 20 Nov 2013, 05:57

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial 2 21 Apr 2011, 19:44
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial 0 28 Sep 2010, 11:39
3 The argument exists that alcohol advertising plays an 10 16 Jul 2009, 12:36
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial 0 23 Jul 2009, 01:54
An advertising agency argued that the quality of its client 4 28 Nov 2007, 12:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by