Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore

Question

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
(B) Advertisers should not make misleading claims about the healthfulness of their products
(C) Advertisements should disclose the health hazards associated with the products they promote 
(D) All products should conform to strict government health and safety standards
(E) Advertisements should promote only healthful products

alexkozhura · Accepted Answer

This is a tough one.

There is one premise: "Cigarettes are bad for health."

And the conclusion: "Therefore, government should ban all ads that promote cigarettes".

We now need to find one more premise that would most logically complete the argument.

A  is a good option,  but there are at least 2 flaws with it :

1. It's possible to make an ad promoting cigarette smoking without showing any people smoking. For example, a famous actor says into the camera: "Smoke cigarettes. They are amazing." 
2. It's possible to make an ad promoting a healthy product (e.g. broccoli) with people doing something dangerous, as a negative example. For instance, you show a person eating 100 doughnuts per day and then say: "Don't be like that person. Eat broccoli."

E doesn't have any flaws . Once we put it into the argument, the whole thing works beautifully: "Cigarettes are bad for health. Ads must promote only healthy things. Therefore, we should ban all ads promoting cigarettes."

MsInvBanker · Answer

Had to think between A and E for a second there.

Queen199212 · Answer

This is a tough one. Any explanation for A&E?

Posted from my mobile device

redskull1 · Answer

I like this question.

A is clearly wrong because content of the advertisement is irrelevant here...
Rest are easy I presume.

bidskamikaze · Answer

(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

sislam04 · Answer

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

Posted from my mobile device

MBAB123 · Answer

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.

sssanskaar · Answer

straight A and E

But A has:  show people doing things  - which is not something that is addressed in the argument.
Hence, E.

hero_with_1000_faces · Answer

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.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

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

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

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:

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.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

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.

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

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.'

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

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...

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

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.'

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Got you and I will remember. Much thanks for your response and patient explanation.

agrasan · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray   KarishmaB

Can we reject option (A) on the basis of reasoning that  "endangering health"  doesn't necessarily mean  "health hazard"  so there is a shift in scope?

Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards