|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems [#permalink]
 06 Apr 2007, 02:54
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, however, it is not necessary to deny this fact in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers. After all, excessive consumption of candy undeniably leads to such health problems as tooth decay, but no one seriously believes that candy eaters who get cavities should be able to sue candy manufacturers.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and the health problems suffered by smokers
(B) depends on the obviously false assumption that everyone who gets cavities does so only as a result of eating too much candy
(C) leaves undefined such critical qualifying terms as “excessiveâ€
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Here we have an E.
Smoking leads to cancer which leads to death. Companies knowingly sell a product which will kill at least some of its users.
Eating candy leads to tooth decay which leads to the dentist, which in the most extreme case leads to dentures at a ripe old age.
death vs. dentures. perhaps he should have used alcohol as a proper comparision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 1
|
I fully agree with defenestrate. It's E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 68
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 1
|
On second thoughts, aren't we using outside knowledge to arrive at the answer. Shouldn't the weakness of the argument be in the passage itself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 33
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
E is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Whats wrong with C...If the two words mean different things then also the comparison is faulty...any thoughts??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Also I think a flaw in the argument has to be from the info given...I feel the nature of the threats posed is outside the scope...Isn't it...Am I missing something??
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
vineetgupta wrote: Also I think a flaw in the argument has to be from the info given...I feel the nature of the threats posed is outside the scope...Isn't it...Am I missing something??
What is the argument?
You can continue to keep accepting that tobacoo is harmful and yet not hold the tobacco companies morally/legally responsible
IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS
You don't consider suing candy companies even though it is undeniably true that candies cause harmful cavities in the teeth.
What do you think is the most appropriate criticism of the above logic? E expresses it clearly by saying you can't compare the effects of tobacco with those of candy - one causes cancer and stuff like that - the other causes only mouth cavities. The two cannot be logically compared.
Hence E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Thanks dwivedys...Can u tell me why C is wrong??
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1481
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
59
[0], given: 13
|
vineetgupta wrote: Thanks dwivedys...Can u tell me why C is wrong??
Well, if you've identified the flaw in the reasoning as I have described in my earlier post you won't even consider C.
On lack of clarity in the use of long term and excessive - I don't think we need a scientific definition of these terms to evaluate the flaw in the argument - which is actually on a more fundamental level - (as identified in E) - which is that comparing the harmful effects of smoking with those of eating candies itself is flawed due to the vast differences in their respective effects.
The point is that these differences would still exist regardless of however clearly you define "excessive" and "long term"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 215
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
The answer is E.
The comparison is between dissimilar (I say dissimilar because the severity of the two effects are not considered) elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
E !
_________________
"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
