asitrout wrote:
Can you please explain , why it is option B?
The author of the argument has concluded the following:
The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.The support for the conclusion is the following:
In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent.We see that the author has seen that sales of cigarettes fell more after the price increased and, on the basis of that information, has concluded, basically, that the price increase caused the drop in sales.
So, this argument is basically a cause-and-effect argument, and the correct answer must strengthen the case for the author's cause-and-effect conclusion that after-tax price affects sales.
A. During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.If anything, this choice weakens the argument. After all, presumably, during the second year after the tax increase, the tax increase was still in effect. Thus, if cigarette sales increased by a significant amount during that time period, then they increased despite the existence of the tax, an outcome indicating that price doesn't matter, which is contrary to the author's conclusion.
That said, we don't know for sure what happened with the price of cigarettes during that second year. It could be that the tax was removed or that the pretax price of cigarettes was lowered by sellers. If we had such information indicating that the price decreased during that second year, then this choice could strengthen the argument.
All the same, as written, this choice has no clear effect on the argument and, if anything, weakens it.
Eliminate.
B. The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.This choice is interesting. Given what this choice says, we now know that sales of cigarettes didn't decrease because consumers got new information on the health risks of smoking. So, this choice serves to eliminate the possibility that the cause for the decrease was new information on health risks.
Having eliminated that possibility, we are now a little more confident that the change in the tax caused the decrease. After all, if new information didn't cause the decline in sales, it seems more likely that the change in price is indeed the cause of the decline.
Thus, this choice helps to strengthen the case for the author's conclusion that "the volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes."
Keep.
C. Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.The fact that consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase may seem to somehow strengthen the argument. In other words, it could have the vibe of being important information that helps to support the conclusion.
However, the truth is that the fact that consumers were unaware that the tax was going to increase doesn't really have any effect on the argument. After all, even if this choice were not true and consumers had been aware that the tax was going to increase, the tax increase still could have caused the decline in cigarette sales.
Eliminate.
D. During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.This choice weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument.
After all, if consumers had less income during the year following the tax increase, then maybe that decrease in income, rather than the increase in the tax, is what caused the decline in cigarette sales.
So, this choice makes us less convinced that the conclusion is correct by showing that something other than the change in price could have caused the decline in sales.
Eliminate.
E. During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the market than there had been during the previous year.This choice is an irrelevant comparison choice. It presents a comparison that does not affect the argument in any way.
After all, the impact of there being a great variety of cigarettes on the market is unclear. A greater variety could tempt more people to smoke and thus increase sales. On the other hand, it could be associated with greater competition or consumer confusion that would result in a decrease in sales.
So, this choice has no clear effect on the argument.
Eliminate.
The correct answer is (B).
_________________
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.comContact me for a free consultation.