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

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

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

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.

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)

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!

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 .

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

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

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.

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

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 .

Can you please explain , why it is option B?

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).