|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 43
Location: Bombay
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. [#permalink]
 26 Mar 2004, 04:28
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. Despite a
significant decline in cigarette smoking in the last two decades,
there has been no comparable decline in the number of people killed
in home fires. Each one of the following statements, if true over the
last two decades, helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy above
EXCEPT:
A) Compared to other types of home fires, home fires caused by
smoking in bed usually cause relatively little damage before they are
extinguished.
B) Home fires caused by smoking in bed often break out after the
home's occupants have fallen asleep.
C) Smokers who smoke in bed tend to be heavy smokers who are less
likely to quit smoking than are smokers who do not smoke in bed.
D) An increasing number of people have been killed in home fires that
started in the kitchen.
E) Population densities have increased, with the result that one home
fire can cause more deaths than in previous decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
A seems right
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 716
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
After narrowing down to A and B, I've choosen B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 327
Location: US
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
A.
If home fires caused by smoking in bed cause relatively little damage before they are extinguished, then the number of deaths from home fires should decline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
I believe A stands out.
B) when fires breakout at night there is more chance of people dying even if just one person smokes at bed.
C) Since smokers who smoke in bed dont quit more easily than others probably explains why total smoking population has decreased and still hasn;t affected the number people who die.
D) It is a trap. The argument is not talking about people dying because of fires caused by cigarette smoking. It considers all thosepeople who die in all sorts of home fires.
E) This is very obvious answer. Increase in population density may be more than the increase in population density of people who smoke in bed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
C only explains WHY there is a reductions in the Smoking Population BUT it does not explain why there has been no reduction in the number of people who die. So it least explains the paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
monarc wrote: C only explains WHY there is a reductions in the Smoking Population BUT it does not explain why there has been no reduction in the number of people who die. So it least explains the paradox.
Which paradox does A help explain then? C does help to explain the part of the paradox which says that despite the decline in cigarette smoking, in bed smoking is STILL a cause of the high and stable death rate in house fire. This is explained by C which says that in-bed smoking, as a sub-class, has not decreased and would then be more likely to cause those house fires
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Weel PAUL Then
B is the best Answer as it DOES NOT Relate Smoking in bed to the number of people who die. It is completely irrelevant to the dicrepancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
monarc wrote: Weel PAUL Then
B is the best Answer as it DOES NOT Relate Smoking in bed to the number of people who die. It is completely irrelevant to the dicrepancy.
Are you more likely to die when you are asleep and a house fire breaks out? B should help resolve the paradox, doesn't it?
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
No It doesn't the PARADOX is There are FEw smokers now than there were before But still The Number of People who have died from fires have NOT reduced. So There is ANOTHER cause Other than Smoking that is reducing the fires and NOT related To smoking and Deaths. The argument says that SMOKING is the main cause of the Deaths. Its Time for the answer Skeletor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 43
Location: Bombay
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
B is correct. All the other choices provide reasons why the
number of people killed in home fires hasn't decreased, despite a
decrease in smoking. B, on the other hand, explains why those who
start fires while smoking in bed are likely to be killed. So, if the
number of smokers has decreased, B would lead us to expect that the
number of home fires caused by smoking would have decreased, and,
therefore (absent any other data), that the number of deaths in home
fires would have decreased. Nothing in B provides an OPPOSITE
effect, which explains why deaths have NOT decreased. In other
words, nothing in B resolves the discrepancy, as required by the
question.
D is wrong because D provides a source of deaths in home fires that
counteracts the reduction in deaths attributable to home fires caused
by smoking in bed. That is, D DOES resolve the apparent discrepancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
