Does the petition genuinely support statewide smoking restriction?
The petition is for restricting smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.

Are the workers describing it accurately?
The workers ask ONLY the following question: “Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?” It is not clarified what is meant by "statewide smoking restriction", i.e, the scope of restricted places (retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public) is not clear in the campaign.

Therefore if the existing local laws are more stringent (i.e. smoking is banned in more places, in addition to retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public), then implementation of the state law would be misleading because it would supersede the local laws, thereby making the smoking norms more lenient.

C. If local antismoking ordinances currently contains stronger bans than the state law does, signing for the petition will actually make the local banning smoking weaker, because local law is replaced by state law. Voters who sign for the petition will want to have stronger local banning smoking ordinances. So C, if exists, actually mislead the voters.

As usual, after seeing the OA and falling back to each and every word in the argument. 'E' looks good.

P1 = In state, cities & towns have their own ordinances

P2 = New petion: name 'Statewide...' with question '...sign for statewide campaign'

P3 = Petition: ban smoking in retail & govern offices open to public.

EC = Petition is misleading to voters on what circumstances, as they understand it is as an local ordinance being extended to statewide

Possible solution: Look out for an option that brings out a local ordinance in place and bring out an element of uncertainity - what will happen to this local ordinance when the new statewide petition/ban is enforced.
Whether the new statewide will go hand in hand with the local or will it supersede it and phase it out.

Looks like I am lagging way behing in CR techiniques..need to catch up...

Its between C and E.....

A. Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for
everyone and so affect nonsmokers - this strengthens the smoking ban.

B. In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and
government offices that are open to the public - even if there are only few retail establishments does not affect the ban

C. The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain
stronger bans than the state law does - yes, what if the new law has restrictions which can affects non-smokers. this could be a problem which will make a voter think twice.

D. There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for
restriction of smoking - again strengthens the ban.

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 - I don't know how to explain this. This also seems to be an answer, which I can't understand.

So, if E is the OA...please could an expert explain OR is there an OE???

Please stay away from resources floating around the internet .

The OA to the above given question is C .

It's from the GMAT prep.

Thanks,
Ankit

In one state, all cities and most towns have anti-smoking 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?
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 anti-smoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.

What would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide ?

Think it like this. I am a voter and have been asked if i would like to increase/improve the law n order situation across state. I say yes. What do i expect?
I expect it to improve, not go down.
Lets look at options:
B Vs C:
Lets think that B is true.
If that is the case then though rural places that would come under the proposed law would be less compared to urban, there would be an overall increase in the area covered under the new law.
So in a way there is increase in so to me this doesn't mislead.
However C means that what i m voting for is not strong enough and that by replacing existing ordinance would compromise the current standard.

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.

Purpose of the petition : is to make smoking illegal in public offices.

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.
Out of scope as we are not discussing insurance premiums

B. In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
This petition still serves its purpose

C. The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
This option makes the petition meaning less - Correct

D. There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
This makes the petition relevant

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.
This statement talks about a subset of the application of the petition. This is the next best answer.
_________________

my understanding of the stimulus is not very clear.
Does the petition genuinely support statewide smoking restriction?Are the workers describing it accurately?
If yes how the voters can be misled?

such questions should be treated as special-type questions. In other words, the correct answer must answer what is being asked by the question.
Here, test takers have to use logic senses, common senses, and gmat skills (especially, identify question type).
The question seems to be a mixing question: logic, application, weaken, and assumption. (weaken and assumption can be combined into assumption)

Premise 1: most places have anti smoking rules
Premise 2: petition is being circulated which only asks if people want to sign it or not (yes/no response)
Premise 3: petition wants to promote a law restricting smoking in most retail/gov't offices that are open to the public

The issue here is that local ordinances (e.g. don't smoke within 10 ft of a public building) are being conflated with a statewide law limiting smoking in retail/gov't offices. If people are asked a yes/no question about whether they would sign the petition and they answer yes, that means they are affirming a NEW law on smoking in these places rather than extending the current local ordinances. So, we are asking in what case this would be misleading.

(A) Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
-- This is irrelevant information; knowing this makes no difference to the question of "is the survey yes/no question misleading?"

(B) In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
-- If there are only a few places in rural areas to ban smoking from, it shouldn't cause much of an effect whether the polled people answer yes or no. If it were the case that the rural people wanted to smoke in the gov't building then they would not sign "yes" to the petition anyway.

(C) The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.
-- This would affect everyone. If the local laws are stronger and then are weakened, perhaps people will now smoke in more places. If the people answer "yes" thinking they would get the same protection with the state law, this would be misleading.

(D) There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
-- Just means that most people have an opinion on the matter. If they have an opinion then they probably care about the outcome of the petition, but this doesn't contribute to judging if the question would be misleading.

(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.
-- Irrelevant information; by saying the state law will not affect some places where smoking is already banned means they are not even a consideration.

I wonder what type of question this one is. I don't really think it is a flaw question as states in the #tags, however I can't match it to any question type I read about before.

Does any one know what is this question type?

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?

Question type- Find the Flaw in argument

Argument states that

# In a Particular State- all Cities+ most towns there is Anti smoking law.
# Petition circulated among voters- for statewide Smoking restriction
# This petition supports law to ban smoking at retail establishments + govt offices open to public

Goal - Is to identify circumstance/ thought which will mislead voters who are thinking this petition 's purpose is to extend local law statewide. What can lead to misunderstanding of this purpose of the petition.



(A) Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.

- Health cost is one of the negative effect of smoking. so probably there is anti smoking law to reduce health cost.. This does not present circumstances to mislead voters assumption that petition of statewide law was extension of local law. It just talks about effect of smoking .
So we eliminate A


(B) In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.

- Even though there are few retail establishments and govt offices open to public, how does that mislead the voters. Impact on rural area is not focus area anyways.so it is irrelevant.

(C) The state law would supersede the local anti smoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.

- If voters are lead to think that statewide law is not as strong as local law for antismoking. State law is comparatively weak and it will replace strong local law . This understanding will mislead Voters assumption that statewide law was extension to local law . Voters who sign for the petition will want to have stronger local ban.
This is the answer we were looking for.

CORRECT

(D) There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.

This simply states that voters are in favour of statewide law. Does not talk about misleading circumstances. So Eliminate D


(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.

- This suggest state law will be compatible with local law. This is inline with what Voters have assumed about petition. So Eliminate
D

Ans is choice C

GMATNinja could you possibly help elaborate on how we should be approaching these kind of questions?

nightblade354 Bunuel this is from GMAT prep. Could you please update the source?

Regards,
Arup

Just a quick note here, trying to contribute to who still find this question troublesome.
I believe I understand the question, and E is not the right answer because of the specific phrase in the actual question.
Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?
Misleading to the voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordiances statewide?
E basicaly said local rules trump the state law, making answer choice E irrelavant, although E sorts of misled the voters in a way.

To answer the question, we must understand what the question is asking.

We can infer that some voters like their local antismoking ordinances. These voters agree with a petition that advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.

How can this petition be misleading to such voters? The circumstance here is clear; the only way for the petition to be misleading is if the statewide ordinance is not exactly the same as the ordinance in local towns. With this in mind, let’s go through the options:

A – Health costs are out of scope. We want an answer choice that explains why the petition as circulated is misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide.

B – This doesn’t explain why the petition is misleading. Even if there are relatively few retail establishments open to the public, these establishments exist and the state ordinance will apply.

C – Bingo – the statewide ordinance is not exactly the same as the ordinance in local towns.

D – This choice doesn’t explain why the petition as circulated is misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide. It’s great a lot of voters are supportive, but we want an explain as to why a group finds it misleading.

E – So the state law would not affect places that already ban smoking. This is irrelevant.

Answer is C.
_________________