In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal

Question

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

A. During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.
B. The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.
C. Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.
D. During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.
E. During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the market than there had been during the previous year.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Thanks  arvind910619  for your reply! I'll add my two cents...

meetnikhil , I think you meant to say "D", not "E" (E doesn't talk about income)?

The author is trying to argue that "the volume of cigarette sales is strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes." Why? Well, when cigarette taxes went up, sales fell sharply. So it seems as though a price increase caused sales to drop.

But (D) tells us that the income of many consumers dropped. Maybe that explains why sales fell. In other words, despite the price increase, perhaps sales would NOT have fallen if consumers' incomes had remained steady. (D) suggests that it may have been income, not after-tax price, that caused the sharp decline, so this could actually  weaken  the argument.

As for (B), what if "the information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking" greatly INCREASED in the period before and after the tax increase? Maybe cigarette sales dropped as people became more aware of the health risks. (B) gives us an alternative explanation for the data, suggesting that the drop in sales may not have had anything to do with the increase in price. Perhaps sales would NOT have fallen, despite the price increase, if information on health risks had not increased.

But (B) tells us that this is not the case. The information available to consumers did NOT change, so the drop in sales had nothing to do with information on health risks. By eliminating another possible explanation, (B) strengthens the argument.

I hope that helps!

reetskaur · Answer

OA is (B)

Since, here, its a 'X' leads to 'Y' scenario here, we have to rule out any alternate cause. Since, an increased awareness about the harmful effects of smoking can be one, that can count as one

royinkol · Answer

But,(B) neither strengthens nor weakens.is E a possibility?Considering the fact that the consumers had more choices,yet the sale plummeted.

carcass · Answer

Read this one https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pac ... tml#bottom in particular the explanation provided by Ron Purewal Then if something remain unclear, do not esistate to ask here . Regards

dominicraj · Answer

Hi carcass,

I read Ron's reply in MGMAT site..

I want some more clarification. Kindly help here... His analysis assumes that the general public already had good knowledge of the ill effects of smoking a cigar..(for option B)

Per option D, we have another good reason as to why someone should leave smoking(ie. without assuming anything further as done by option B).. what is your take on it?

Regards,
Dom.

Abhishek009 · Answer

I consider this question as a cause and effect relationship - Federal Tax---------> Sale of cigerette

For strenthening Cause and effect relationship Powerscore CR suggests -

1. Eliminate alternate cause of the stated effect  
2. Show Cause Occurs and the effect also occurs
3. Show that Cause doesn't occur , effect also doesn't occur
4. Eliminate the possibility that the stated relationship can be reversed
5. Show date used to make casual statement is accurate / eliminate possible problems with the data

Option (B) is doing just that , it is eliminating the alternate cause for reduction in sale of cigerettes , hence IMHO (B)

meetnikhil · Answer

Hi Experts,

Can you please let us know why E is not correct for this?
B talks about health hazards and E talks about direct income available to consumer. Argument mainly talks about tax - which is related to money available to spend. So E seems to be correct option. Request your inputs on this.
Thanks!

arvind910619 · Answer

The conclusion is that the tax increase was responsible for the reduction in the volume of cigarettes sold . We have to reinforce this conclusion with other information or we can remove other cause that can lead to conclusion .
B does just does just that .
If information regarding smoking is the same as before and after the tax increase then the volume reduction in was solely due to the tax increase .

arvind910619 · Answer

Hi , 
Although i am no expert i will try to answer your query .
Choice in any way does not affect the argument rather if that is the case then it should let people try new brands and varieties . This may cause the volume of the cigarettes to rise or may be not we can not say for sure .

Hope it is clear now

push12345 · Answer

here is my take on it

B clearly states that other cause is not possible and sales decline due to increase of price of cigarettes.

D sounds tempting but D is some what incomplete , it shows that income is decreased but it does not tell us whether how much of decreased income related to sale of cigarettes.
whether less income lead to decrease in sales .. we dont know .. so it is not correct

GIve kudos if it helps

dcummins · Answer

Argument (conclusion): Volume of Ciggy sales is strongly related to tax movements and thus the after tax price
Missing link: are there any other factors that could have attriuted to the 10% drop in sales?

A. During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.
Irrelevant to our argument. Our argument is only concerned with the year immediately after the tax increase.
B. The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.
 This fills in our missing link. There was no change in the information available to consumers.
 C. Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.
Irrelevant.
D. During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.
Weakener. 180 option as this option gives rise to an alternate reason why sales declined.
E. During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the market than there had been during the previous year.
Increase in the volume of products yet still an overall decrease in sales? This doesn't really strengthen or weaken, it's neutral.

Bunuel · Answer

Similar questions: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-year- ... 41838.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-year- ... 43124.html

soumya170293 · Answer

How to strengthen a statement :

1. Directly make an additional information that supports the statement. ( whatever the statement is : cause and effect , normal etc ) 
2. Remove the  Alternate cause  .

B is doing no 2 .

asitrout · Answer

Can you please explain , why it is option B?

MartyMurray · Answer

The author of the argument has concluded the following:

The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent.

We see that the author has seen that sales of cigarettes fell more after the price increased and, on the basis of that information, has concluded, basically, that the price increase caused the drop in sales.

So, this argument is basically a cause-and-effect argument, and the correct answer must strengthen the case for the author's cause-and-effect conclusion that after-tax price affects sales.

A. During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.

If anything, this choice weakens the argument. After all, presumably, during the second year after the tax increase, the tax increase was still in effect. Thus, if cigarette sales increased by a significant amount during that time period, then they increased despite the existence of the tax, an outcome indicating that price doesn't matter, which is contrary to the author's conclusion.

That said, we don't know for sure what happened with the price of cigarettes during that second year. It could be that the tax was removed or that the pretax price of cigarettes was lowered by sellers. If we had such information indicating that the price decreased during that second year, then this choice could strengthen the argument.

All the same, as written, this choice has no clear effect on the argument and, if anything, weakens it.

Eliminate.

B. The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.

This choice is interesting. Given what this choice says, we now know that sales of cigarettes didn't decrease because consumers got new information on the health risks of smoking. So, this choice serves to eliminate the possibility that the cause for the decrease was new information on health risks.

Having eliminated that possibility, we are now a little more confident that the change in the tax caused the decrease. After all, if new information didn't cause the decline in sales, it seems more likely that the change in price is indeed the cause of the decline.

Thus, this choice helps to strengthen the case for the author's conclusion that "the volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes."

Keep.

C. Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.

The fact that consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase may seem to somehow strengthen the argument. In other words, it could have the vibe of being important information that helps to support the conclusion.

However, the truth is that the fact that consumers were unaware that the tax was going to increase doesn't really have any effect on the argument. After all, even if this choice were not true and consumers had been aware that the tax was going to increase, the tax increase still could have caused the decline in cigarette sales.

Eliminate.

D. During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.

This choice weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument.

After all, if consumers had less income during the year following the tax increase, then maybe that decrease in income, rather than the increase in the tax, is what caused the decline in cigarette sales.

So, this choice makes us less convinced that the conclusion is correct by showing that something other than the change in price could have caused the decline in sales.

Eliminate.

E. During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the market than there had been during the previous year.

This choice is an irrelevant comparison choice. It presents a comparison that does not affect the argument in any way.

After all, the impact of there being a great variety of cigarettes on the market is unclear. A greater variety could tempt more people to smoke and thus increase sales. On the other hand, it could be associated with greater competition or consumer confusion that would result in a decrease in sales.

So, this choice has no clear effect on the argument.

Eliminate.

The correct answer is (B).

ManifestDreamMBA · Answer

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent.  The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.

A. During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.  Weakens the claim 
B. The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.  This makes sense. It eliminates other reasons, hence strengthening the claim it could be the after-tax price after all! 
C. Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.  Irrelevant 
D. During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.  Weakens the claim. Suggests it was low income and not the after-tax responsible for drop in sales 
E. During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the market than there had been during the previous year.  Irrelevant

egmat · Answer

This is a strengthen question - these causal reasoning questions can be tricky because we need to think about what else might explain the observed pattern.

Let's break down what's happening here:

The argument observes two facts:
- Year before tax increase: cigarette sales fell  1% 
- Year after 8-cent tax increase: cigarette sales fell  10%

From this dramatic difference (1% vs 10% drop), the author concludes that sales volume is  strongly related to after-tax price .

Here's what you need to see:  The author is making a causal claim - that the price increase  caused  the bigger sales drop. But wait... what if something else happened at the same time that could explain the 10% drop?

Think about alternative explanations: 
What else could cause cigarette sales to suddenly drop much more dramatically? Maybe:
- New health warnings or anti-smoking campaigns?
- Economic downturn reducing disposable income?
- Changes in social attitudes toward smoking?

To strengthen this argument, we need to eliminate these alternative causes.

Looking at choice  B : "The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged..."

This is exactly what we need! By confirming that health information  didn't change  during this period, we eliminate a major alternative explanation. If there had been new health campaigns or warnings coinciding with the tax increase, we couldn't be sure whether the price or the health information caused the sales drop.

Notice how choice D actually weakens the argument by introducing another possible cause (reduced income), while choice A suggests the price-sales relationship might not be that strong after all if sales bounced back.

---

For the complete framework on how to systematically identify and eliminate alternative explanations in strengthen questions, you can check out the  step-by-step solution on Neuron by e-GMAT . You'll also discover the three-step process that works for all causal strengthen questions and see how this pattern appears across different official problems. Feel free to explore other  GMAT official questions with detailed solutions on Neuron  for structured practice.

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal

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

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal

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