Bunuel 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.
(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.
CR38561.01
Lobbyists : 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.
The point being made by lobbyists is that since there is no statistical evidence of ill effect on healthy non smokers, don't ban workplace smoking.
Why is workplace smoking banned? Because non smokers get exposed to smoke too. So smokers step outside the office premises or in marked areas/rooms and smoke there. The lobbyist is arguing that since smoke doesn't impact healthy individuals as per stats available, ban should be lifted.
We need to weaken his argument.
(A) It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking.
Out of scope. We are only discussing whether workplace smoking ban should be lifted or not.
(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.
Correct. The stats only talk about no impact on healthy individuals. What about unhealthy non smokers? What if cigarette smoke is terrible for them and they get exposed to it without actually indulging in the activity themselves? Then the ban does make sense. So the lobbyist focusses only on healthy non smokers and fails to
evaluate the impact on unhealthy non smokers.
(C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease.
Out of scope. We are discussing effect of smoking only.
(D) It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.
What this concern may lead to, we do not know. They may start taking better care of their health or they may come under stress - we don't know.
(E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.
goaltop30mbaJust because smokers are ruining their health, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to ruin others even if it is to a smaller extent. Banning workplace smoking does not make smokers quit. They just smoke in restricted areas and outside office timings. So workplace smoking ban doesn't change the health of smokers anyway. To discuss whether workplace smoking should be allowed or not, we need to evaluate its impact on the health of non smokers only. The argument discusses its effect on healthy non smokers. We need to ensure that its impact on unhealthy non smokers is also taken into consideration (as done by option (B)).
Hence (E) is irrelevant.
Answer (B)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep