Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical [#permalink]
23 Aug 2006, 01:05
100% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other peopleâ€™s tobacco smoke increases the incidence of heart disease or lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers, legislation banning smoking in workplaces cannot be justified on health grounds.
Of the following, which is the best criticism of the argument reported above?
(A) It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking.
(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.
(C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease.
(D) It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.
(E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.
A - irrelevant, the argument discusses the smoking effects and ban.
B - right. The statistics the tabacco lobby cites only refers to healthy nonsmokers. Very few people are healthy.
C - irrelevant, addresses only the heart disease but not lung cancer, and if it were relevant it would provide support for the lobbyists, notr criticicize them: "yeah guys what don't you eat healthy and exercise more instead of prohibiting peiple from smoking"
D - so what if they become concerned ? anyway they may or may not- that's a weak argument
E - it doesn't matter if they are healthier in general because the ground for the ban are specific diseases and it's the evidence against those diseases that the lobbyists cite
"Amicus Plato, sed magic amica veritas"