MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
abhishekmayank wrote:
I am not convinced with the right option E :
The question is asking for the support of the argument and not of the consequence- "Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument about the consequences "
Argument : Reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes.
Consequence: Therefore implementing this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking related illnesses
Now the probable correct options :
(B) most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain somewhat less than the maximum amount of nicotine permitted by law.
(E) The main cause of smoking-related illnesses is not nicotine but tar in cigarette smoke.
I think that option B supports the Argument, whereas option C supports the the Consequence. In that case, the oprion B looks more correct option IMO.
Experts could you please chime in ?
While we generally call a question such as this one a Strengthen the ARGUMENT question, the correct answer will strengthen one particular thing, the support for the final conclusion of the argument.
So, in this case, we have to find a choice that supports the case for the prediction that you have called "the consequence."
Now, I understand that the question stem is not worded to clearly convey that that is what we have to do. It's worded in a way that could be taken as indicating that we have to somehow strengthen the internals of the argument. So, to confirm that (B) is not the correct answer, let's consider (B) just in case.
(B) indicates that cigarettes already contain less nicotine than is allowed by law. Notice that the implications of (B) are that reducing the maximum allowable quantity of nicotine may not have as much affect as it otherwise would have because the quantities of nicotine in cigarrettes are ALREADY lower than the legal maximum.
So, if anything (B) slightly weakens the case for concluding that reducing the legal maximum will have the predicted effect. In fact, for all we know given what (B) says, the amount of nicotine in cigarettes is already close to or at half the legal maximum. Thus, for all we know given what (B) says, reducing the legal maximum will have little to no effect.
So, regardless of how the question is worded, (B) cannot be the correct answer since, if anything, (B) weakens rather than strengthens the argument.
On the other hand, as you have agreed, (E) strengthens the support for the argument's main conclusion. So, (E) is the correct answer.
hello Sir
MartyTargetTestPrep ,
I am not very clear how B weakens the argument instead of irrelevant.
say B has 85% nicotine and now nicotine can be reduced to 50%
X: 100% nicotine and reduce to 50% limit. means smokers may buy double the number of cigarettes
Y( as per our option B) has 85% nicotine and smokers may buy less than double the number of cigarettes( assume they spend money on buying same quantity of nicotine)
According to my thought, B become irrelevant because we don't know how many quantity they increase to .
If they keep same quantity of cigarettes , then plan will work. Means weaken the conclusion.
if smokers increase quantity then plan will not work. Plan will not work means strengthen the conclusion.
So without further information , B become irrelevant.
When i saw D option, it slightly weakness the conclusion because smokers are already spending a lot of money. assuming prices remain same, then they may not buy more cigarettes . It means plan would work . Plan work means weakness the conclusion.
Please clarify what I am missing for B then i am not able to see it is weakening the argument