|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
Posts: 62
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical [#permalink]
 01 Jul 2007, 18:46
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
. 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.
annot be justified on health grounds.
PLease explain reason for choosing your answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 328
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
I'll go with (B).
the argument doesn't take care of nonsmokers who are not healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
