Last visit was: 22 Jun 2025, 20:50 It is currently 22 Jun 2025, 20:50
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
nightblade354
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 21 Jun 2025
Posts: 1,781
Own Kudos:
6,552
 [39]
Given Kudos: 3,290
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,781
Kudos: 6,552
 [39]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
36
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
alexkozhura
Joined: 08 Oct 2018
Last visit: 26 Nov 2018
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
51
 [15]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: Russian Federation
GMAT 1: 650 Q35 V44
GPA: 3.8
WE:Consulting (Education)
GMAT 1: 650 Q35 V44
Posts: 30
Kudos: 51
 [15]
14
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
MsInvBanker
Joined: 23 May 2018
Last visit: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 658
Own Kudos:
224
 [1]
Given Kudos: 45
Location: Pakistan
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
Queen199212
Joined: 15 Jul 2018
Last visit: 09 Jul 2020
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 31
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 640 Q45 V33
GPA: 4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Products:
GMAT 1: 640 Q45 V33
Posts: 14
Kudos: 7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is a tough one. Any explanation for A&E?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
redskull1
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Last visit: 25 Sep 2022
Posts: 294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 115
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I like this question.

A is clearly wrong because content of the advertisement is irrelevant here...
Rest are easy I presume.
User avatar
bidskamikaze
Joined: 07 Jan 2018
Last visit: 29 Oct 2022
Posts: 262
Own Kudos:
289
 [1]
Given Kudos: 161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 262
Kudos: 289
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Queen199212
This is a tough one. Any explanation for A&E?

Posted from my mobile device

(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health
Option A is incorrect, as it is valid for ads that SHOW people DOING things that endanger their health.
A cigarette company could advertise its cigarettes WITHOUT showing people who are smoking. In such case, the author's conclusion will not hold true.

Option E, on the other hand, is airtight!
(E) Advertisements should promote only healthful products
As "cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard" - this option is correct
User avatar
sislam04
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Last visit: 10 Nov 2022
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
13
 [1]
Given Kudos: 15
Posts: 37
Kudos: 13
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Lol these are just such arbitrary explanations. Consensus here is that A should be gone because it doesn’t have to show people smoking. E says ads should only show healthful products. Lol so financial products and services that have nothing to do with health can’t be advertised? Lol this is all just gibberish.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 565
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 565
Kudos: 312
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sislam04
Lol these are just such arbitrary explanations. Consensus here is that A should be gone because it doesn’t have to show people smoking. E says ads should only show healthful products. Lol so financial products and services that have nothing to do with health can’t be advertised? Lol this is all just gibberish.

Posted from my mobile device

sislam04, I see your point but A is worse than E for the reasons cited by other members. If E is true, you simply cannot show an advertisement that promotes smoking. If A is true, you could still show advertisements that promote smoking. Also, I kind of agree with your point about advertisements related to health neutral products, but we have to pick the best out of the 5.
User avatar
sssanskaar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 09 Oct 2022
Posts: 221
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 163
Location: India
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Posts: 221
Kudos: 102
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
straight A and E

But A has: show people doing things - which is not something that is addressed in the argument.
Hence, E.
User avatar
hero_with_1000_faces
Joined: 02 Jan 2016
Last visit: 17 Mar 2025
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 314
Status:Studying 4Gmat
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 590 Q37 V33
GPA: 4
WE:Law (Manufacturing)
Products:
GMAT 1: 590 Q37 V33
Posts: 361
Kudos: 141
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore, government should ban all advertisements that promote smoking.

Which one of the following principles, if established, most strongly supports the argument?

(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health
(E) Advertisements should promote only healthful products


Cigarette smoking -> health hazard - > ban advertisements that promote smoking.


A can be eliminated as "people doing things that endanger their health" or endangering health is different from health hazard.

A Redbull energy add wherein a Dare Devil is doing stunts in bike is an act where the person is endangering his health but it is not health Hazard.


The question's reasoning structure is that smoking is health hazard hence advertisement should be banned hence A can be eliminated.
User avatar
Mavisdu1017
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Last visit: 04 Jan 2023
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 226
Posts: 361
Kudos: 43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello expert,
Can you shed some light on this question? Especially on A and E. I read through the thread, but sorry I feel a little bit far fetched.
This is an official question and deserves your attention. Thanks
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 528
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mavisdu1017
Hello expert,
Can you shed some light on this question? Especially on A and E. I read through the thread, but sorry I feel a little bit far fetched.
This is an official question and deserves your attention. Thanks

When I first read, I thought A was probably going to be right, but then I saw E.

It's very tricky! But here's my big advice: read *specifically*, don't assume anything that isn't explicit, and look out for subtle differences in similar ideas (particularly, look for things that NARROW THE SCOPE or BROADEN THE SCOPE of a topic).

The argument says we should ban ALL advertisements that promote smoking. Reread A and see if you can see how A NARROWS THE SCOPE of our discussion:

Quote:
(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health

A talks about advertising, and it talks about smoking... but what advertisements would it suggest banning? (Try to answer before reading on).

It would ban advertisements that *showed people smoking*.

What advertisements is the argument trying to ban? *ALL* smoking advertisements.

Do you see the shift?

Advertisers can (and very often do) advertise their product without showing people smoking. It can just be a picture of the cigarettes, or just a picture of the brand logo. The argument needs to ban those, too.

E says "Advertisements should promote only healthful products."

Well if cigarettes aren't healthy, and E is true, then definitely, NO smoking advertisements should be allowed, since ALL smoking advertisements promote an unhealthy product.
User avatar
Mavisdu1017
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Last visit: 04 Jan 2023
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 226
Posts: 361
Kudos: 43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
Mavisdu1017
Hello expert,
Can you shed some light on this question? Especially on A and E. I read through the thread, but sorry I feel a little bit far fetched.
This is an official question and deserves your attention. Thanks

When I first read, I thought A was probably going to be right, but then I saw E.

It's very tricky! But here's my big advice: read *specifically*, don't assume anything that isn't explicit, and look out for subtle differences in similar ideas (particularly, look for things that NARROW THE SCOPE or BROADEN THE SCOPE of a topic).

The argument says we should ban ALL advertisements that promote smoking. Reread A and see if you can see how A NARROWS THE SCOPE of our discussion:

Quote:
(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health

A talks about advertising, and it talks about smoking... but what advertisements would it suggest banning? (Try to answer before reading on).

It would ban advertisements that *showed people smoking*.

What advertisements is the argument trying to ban? *ALL* smoking advertisements.

Do you see the shift?

Advertisers can (and very often do) advertise their product without showing people smoking. It can just be a picture of the cigarettes, or just a picture of the brand logo. The argument needs to ban those, too.

E says "Advertisements should promote only healthful products."

Well if cigarettes aren't healthy, and E is true, then definitely, NO smoking advertisements should be allowed, since ALL smoking advertisements promote an unhealthy product.
ReedArnoldMPREP thanks for your response sir. Yes I have known A narrows the scope, but what confused me is: whether such a choice can NOT strengthen the argument? although it narrows some scope.
Pls help. Thank you.
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 528
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mavisdu1017
ReedArnoldMPREP
Mavisdu1017
Hello expert,
Can you shed some light on this question? Especially on A and E. I read through the thread, but sorry I feel a little bit far fetched.
This is an official question and deserves your attention. Thanks

When I first read, I thought A was probably going to be right, but then I saw E.

It's very tricky! But here's my big advice: read *specifically*, don't assume anything that isn't explicit, and look out for subtle differences in similar ideas (particularly, look for things that NARROW THE SCOPE or BROADEN THE SCOPE of a topic).

The argument says we should ban ALL advertisements that promote smoking. Reread A and see if you can see how A NARROWS THE SCOPE of our discussion:

Quote:
(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health

A talks about advertising, and it talks about smoking... but what advertisements would it suggest banning? (Try to answer before reading on).

It would ban advertisements that *showed people smoking*.

What advertisements is the argument trying to ban? *ALL* smoking advertisements.

Do you see the shift?

Advertisers can (and very often do) advertise their product without showing people smoking. It can just be a picture of the cigarettes, or just a picture of the brand logo. The argument needs to ban those, too.

E says "Advertisements should promote only healthful products."

Well if cigarettes aren't healthy, and E is true, then definitely, NO smoking advertisements should be allowed, since ALL smoking advertisements promote an unhealthy product.
ReedArnoldMPREP thanks for your response sir. Yes I have known A narrows the scope, but what confused me is: whether such a choice can NOT strengthen the argument? although it narrows some scope.
Pls help. Thank you.

So a good exercise is to make yourself actually write out why you think an answer does what you think it does. Why do you think 'banning advertisements that show people doing something unhealthy' strengthens that 'All smoking advertisements should be banned.'
User avatar
Mavisdu1017
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Last visit: 04 Jan 2023
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 226
Posts: 361
Kudos: 43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP hi sir, this is what I think: I just thought it as a math issue - assume them as 2 sets (option A=set A, while the conclusion=set B), and set A is a subset of set B, as option A narrows some scope of the conclusion. So I think a subset (set A) can support PART of set B (but still support), though can not support the whole set B. Maybe I think too much...
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 528
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mavisdu1017
ReedArnoldMPREP hi sir, this is what I think: I just thought it as a math issue - assume them as 2 sets (option A=set A, while the conclusion=set B), and set A is a subset of set B, as option A narrows some scope of the conclusion. So I think a subset (set A) can support PART of set B (but still support), though can not support the whole set B. Maybe I think too much...

Banning a part does not strengthen banning the whole. I say 'we shouldn't let anyone draw rectangles anymore,' it doesn't strengthen that argument to say 'no one should draw squares.'
User avatar
Mavisdu1017
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Last visit: 04 Jan 2023
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 226
Posts: 361
Kudos: 43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP
Mavisdu1017
ReedArnoldMPREP hi sir, this is what I think: I just thought it as a math issue - assume them as 2 sets (option A=set A, while the conclusion=set B), and set A is a subset of set B, as option A narrows some scope of the conclusion. So I think a subset (set A) can support PART of set B (but still support), though can not support the whole set B. Maybe I think too much...

Banning a part does not strengthen banning the whole. I say 'we shouldn't let anyone draw rectangles anymore,' it doesn't strengthen that argument to say 'no one should draw squares.'
Got you and I will remember. Much thanks for your response and patient explanation.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,407
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,407
Kudos: 946
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7332 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts