gregspirited wrote:
In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled “Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction” is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, “Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?” The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.
Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?
(A) Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
(B) In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
(C) The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
(D) There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
(E) The state law would not affect existing local ordinances banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard.
Question Code : VCR000806
Argument:
In a state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances (no idea about rural areas).
A petition entitled “Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction” is being circulated to voters.
Voters are asked: “Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?”
The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.
Think about this: Say you are asked "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?”
You think that the proposal as extending the LOCAL ordinances STATEWIDE.
If you are anti smoking, you will say YES. You want the whole state to be covered with the antismoking ordinance currently applied locally.
If you are pro smoking, you will say NO. You do not want the anti smoking ordinance covering even more areas.
Now what will be misleading? If actually the petition is more relaxed than the local anti smoking ordinance and the state petition will override the local ordinance.
Say the local ordinances do not allow smoking anywhere except in private homes. But the state petition bans it only in most retail establishments (but doesn't ban in restaurants) and government office (but doesn't ban in private offices). If the state petition overrides the local ordinance, if implemented, the state petition will allow smoking in more places than before in the cities and towns! It was misleading to the voters. A voter who was anti smoking thought that he was voting for anti-smoking laws in the entire state, but actually he ended up voting for relaxed laws against smoking in many places.
This is what option (C) says.
(C) The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
The state law supersedes the local ordinance i.e. the state law will be applicable, not the local ordinance.
The local ordinance contained stronger bans that the state law.
Answer (C)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
Register for FREE trial of our complete GMAT Prep Package at ANA PREP
(Includes trial access to Study Modules, Conceptual Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Webinars)
YouTube Channel @karishma.anaprepyoutube.com/channel/UCVxczpVAbQSQGEUyt72G2Eg/