Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 0608:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory....- May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
05 May 2026, 11:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
100% (00:33) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 1
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Is there a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer?
- Research consistently shows a strong correlation between smoking and the development of lung cancer
- Some medical researchers support a proposed mechanism by which smoking could cause lung cancer.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Data Sufficiency (DS) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
05 May 2026, 11:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
E-gmat solution
Understanding the Question
The question asks: "Is there a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer?"
This is a yes/no question. To answer with certainty, we must be able to definitively say either YES (smoking causes lung cancer) or NO (smoking does not cause lung cancer).
Here's the crucial distinction: Correlation ≠ Causation
Correlation: Two things occur together frequently
Causation: One thing directly causes the other
For true causation, we need:
Evidence of correlation (they occur together)
A proven mechanism (how one causes the other)
Alternative explanations ruled out
To have sufficiency in this DS question, we need enough information to definitively establish whether causation exists or not.
Analyzing Statement 1
Statement 1: "Research consistently shows a strong correlation between smoking and the development of lung cancer."
This tells us that smokers develop lung cancer more frequently than non-smokers. However, correlation alone never proves causation.
Consider these equally possible scenarios:
Scenario A: Smoking directly damages lung cells → cancer develops (TRUE CAUSATION)
Scenario B: Genetic factor X → makes people more likely to smoke AND more susceptible to cancer (NO DIRECT CAUSATION)
Scenario C: Smokers live in polluted areas → pollution causes cancer (INDIRECT RELATIONSHIP)
Since Statement 1 only establishes correlation, we cannot distinguish between these scenarios. We cannot definitively answer YES or NO to the causation question.
Statement 1 alone is NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choices A and D.
Analyzing Statement 2
Important: We now forget Statement 1 completely and analyze Statement 2 independently.
Statement 2: "Some medical researchers support a proposed mechanism by which smoking could cause lung cancer."
Let's examine the key words:
"Some" researchers (not all or most)
"Proposed" mechanism (not proven)
Smoking "could" cause cancer (possibility, not certainty)
This gives us a theoretical pathway for causation, but with significant uncertainty. Without knowing if this mechanism is:
Actually correct
Widely accepted by the scientific community
Proven through rigorous testing
...we cannot definitively answer our yes/no question.
Statement 2 alone is NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choice B (and D is already eliminated).
Combining Both Statements
Now let's use both statements together:
From Statement 1: Strong correlation exists
From Statement 2: A proposed mechanism exists (with some support)
Even combined, can we definitively answer whether smoking causes lung cancer?
What we have:
Evidence that smoking and lung cancer occur together
A possible explanation for how one might cause the other
What we still lack:
Proof that the mechanism is correct
Elimination of alternative explanations
Scientific consensus (we only have "some" support)
The correlation could still be explained by non-causal factors (like our Scenarios B and C from earlier). The proposed mechanism remains unproven—it's just a theory with partial support.
For definitive causation, we would need:
The mechanism to be proven correct
Alternative explanations to be ruled out
Broad scientific consensus, not just "some" support
The statements together are NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choice C.
The Answer: E
Neither statement alone nor both statements together provide sufficient information to determine whether there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
We can establish correlation and identify a possible mechanism, but we cannot definitively prove or disprove causation.
Answer: E - Both statements together are still not sufficient.
Understanding the Question
The question asks: "Is there a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer?"
This is a yes/no question. To answer with certainty, we must be able to definitively say either YES (smoking causes lung cancer) or NO (smoking does not cause lung cancer).
Here's the crucial distinction: Correlation ≠ Causation
Correlation: Two things occur together frequently
Causation: One thing directly causes the other
For true causation, we need:
Evidence of correlation (they occur together)
A proven mechanism (how one causes the other)
Alternative explanations ruled out
To have sufficiency in this DS question, we need enough information to definitively establish whether causation exists or not.
Analyzing Statement 1
Statement 1: "Research consistently shows a strong correlation between smoking and the development of lung cancer."
This tells us that smokers develop lung cancer more frequently than non-smokers. However, correlation alone never proves causation.
Consider these equally possible scenarios:
Scenario A: Smoking directly damages lung cells → cancer develops (TRUE CAUSATION)
Scenario B: Genetic factor X → makes people more likely to smoke AND more susceptible to cancer (NO DIRECT CAUSATION)
Scenario C: Smokers live in polluted areas → pollution causes cancer (INDIRECT RELATIONSHIP)
Since Statement 1 only establishes correlation, we cannot distinguish between these scenarios. We cannot definitively answer YES or NO to the causation question.
Statement 1 alone is NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choices A and D.
Analyzing Statement 2
Important: We now forget Statement 1 completely and analyze Statement 2 independently.
Statement 2: "Some medical researchers support a proposed mechanism by which smoking could cause lung cancer."
Let's examine the key words:
"Some" researchers (not all or most)
"Proposed" mechanism (not proven)
Smoking "could" cause cancer (possibility, not certainty)
This gives us a theoretical pathway for causation, but with significant uncertainty. Without knowing if this mechanism is:
Actually correct
Widely accepted by the scientific community
Proven through rigorous testing
...we cannot definitively answer our yes/no question.
Statement 2 alone is NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choice B (and D is already eliminated).
Combining Both Statements
Now let's use both statements together:
From Statement 1: Strong correlation exists
From Statement 2: A proposed mechanism exists (with some support)
Even combined, can we definitively answer whether smoking causes lung cancer?
What we have:
Evidence that smoking and lung cancer occur together
A possible explanation for how one might cause the other
What we still lack:
Proof that the mechanism is correct
Elimination of alternative explanations
Scientific consensus (we only have "some" support)
The correlation could still be explained by non-causal factors (like our Scenarios B and C from earlier). The proposed mechanism remains unproven—it's just a theory with partial support.
For definitive causation, we would need:
The mechanism to be proven correct
Alternative explanations to be ruled out
Broad scientific consensus, not just "some" support
The statements together are NOT sufficient.
[STOP - Not Sufficient!] This eliminates choice C.
The Answer: E
Neither statement alone nor both statements together provide sufficient information to determine whether there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
We can establish correlation and identify a possible mechanism, but we cannot definitively prove or disprove causation.
Answer: E - Both statements together are still not sufficient.
05 May 2026, 12:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Usernamevisible
Please use search box before posting: https://gmatclub.com/forum/is-there-a-c ... 30179.html
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Data Sufficiency (DS) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
