kg05 wrote:
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.
Premises:
Tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking.
In Norway, tobacco adv is banned since 1975, but smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban
Conclusion?
Note that the premises talk about smoking among teenagers.
(A) Tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor that affects the prevalence of smoking among teenagers.
In Norway, tobacco advertising was stopped decades ago but teenagers of today still smoke as much as they do in other countries. So other factors are responsible for start of smoking among teenagers today. Advertising cannot be the only factor.
This is the answer.
(B) Advertising does not play a role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
This we cannot conclude. It is possible that advertising plays a role but other factors play a role too. Perhaps advertising ban did reduce smoking among teenagers but availability of cigarettes through vending machines is a factor and increased smoking among teenagers. There could be many reasons why teenager smoking is same in Norway as other countries despite the ban.
(C) Banning tobacco advertising does not reduce the consumption of tobacco.
This statement is just too wide to be relevant in our context. We are talking about smoking among teenagers. Banning advertising could have impact on adults even if it doesn't on teenagers.
(D) More teen-agers smoke if they are not exposed to tobacco advertising than if they are.
The argument does not imply this at all.
We know that at least as many smoke. Do more smoke? We don't know.
(E) Most teen-agers who smoked in 1975 did not stop when the ban on tobacco advertising was implemented.
We are talking about the teenagers of today. Teenagers of 1975 would be adults now.
Answer (A)
Hi @VeritasKarishma: Reg. your explanation for
, kindly help me understand how did we conclude "at least as many smoke" (highlighted, red)?
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.