|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 272
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical [#permalink]
 18 Jan 2007, 03:02
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other people’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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Where you mind is
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Going for B.
Stats in the argument only cover healthy persons --> Using a sample to justify for the entire population. Appears to be a sampling argument to me. So, need to attack the stats.
(A), (C) and (E) Not relevant
(D) Going a bit too far from argument. No relation between "becoming more concerned" and the stats quoted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 737
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 4
|
AK47 wrote: The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other people’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.
This is my answer. In the argument, the author comments just about "healthy nonsmokers". In unhealthy nonsmokers, the possible effects can be more.
(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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 63
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
B is the only possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1447
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
136
[0], given: 12
|
ill go with B , question mentions healthy non-smokers, however, non healthy non-smokers need to be singled out
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1138
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
Has to be B.
The author states a generalized conclusion (banning smoking in workplaces) using a premise that is too narrow in scope (healthy (not all) nonsmokers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
B !
_________________
"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 272
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
oa is b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
