Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 01 Oct 2014, 20:39

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 268
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical [#permalink] New post 18 Jan 2007, 02:02
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 112
Location: Where you mind is
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 18 Jan 2007, 04:01
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
Director
User avatar
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 736
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 4

Re: CR-SMOKERS [#permalink] New post 18 Jan 2007, 04:31
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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 61
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 18 Jan 2007, 04:35
B is the only possible
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 150 [0], given: 12

 [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2007, 14:31
ill go with B , question mentions healthy non-smokers, however, non healthy non-smokers need to be singled out
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2007, 19:29
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
Director
avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 754
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2007, 22:22
B !
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 268
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2007, 20:45
oa is b
  [#permalink] 01 Feb 2007, 20:45
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical gmatpapa 7 18 Feb 2011, 05:54
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical rao 6 11 Sep 2008, 12:01
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical balboa 4 12 Aug 2008, 06:56
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical crazy123 1 01 Jul 2007, 17:46
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical sumitsarkar82 12 23 Aug 2006, 00:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.