GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 07:35

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 223
Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 01 Feb 2019, 13:03
16
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

19% (02:15) correct 81% (02:08) wrong based on 360 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so, since such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practice. But cigarette advertisements should remain legal since advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict between Kendrick's statements?

(B) The advertisement of fattening foods, unlike that of cigarettes, should not be prevented, because fattening foods, unlike cigarettes, are not addictive.
(D) Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition.
(E) Governments should place restrictions on cigarette advertisements so as to keep them from encouraging people to engage in unhealthy practices, but should not try to prevent such advertisements.

OA and OE will follow

Originally posted by mikeCoolBoy on 10 Sep 2009, 02:31.
Last edited by Gladiator59 on 01 Feb 2019, 13:03, edited 1 time in total.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2864
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2019, 06:30
2
arpitkansal wrote:

Let's examine each side of the "apparent conflict" in the passage, labeling each "side" as 1 or 2 for clarity:

• Conclusion 1: "Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so"
• Support for conclusion 1: "such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practices."

• Support for conclusion 2: "advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices."

Our task is to find an answer choice that "most helps to resolve the apparent conflict between Kendrick's statements." So, we need to find a statement that explains how both conclusions can be valid at the same time. With that in mind, let's go through the answer choices:

Quote:

This answer choice does not resolve the apparent conflict because it directly contradicts conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal"). (A) is out.

Quote:
(B) The advertisement of fattening foods, unlike that of cigarettes, should not be prevented, because fattening foods, unlike cigarettes, are not addictive.

This answer choice does not resolve the central conflict between the two conclusions. It adds another element (the addictive nature of cigarettes) to support conclusion 1, but it does not explain why "cigarette advertisements should remain legal" in light of this further evidence. (B) is out.

Quote:

Quote:
(D) Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition.

This one is interesting. The first part of the statement ("Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes") fits nicely with conclusion 1, that "governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so".

So far so good, but how does it stack up against conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal")? Answer choice (D) specifies that governments should use "financial disincentives rather than... legal prohibition" to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes.

So, answer choice (D) supports both sides of the apparent conflict. Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes, but should do so through financial disincentives rather than legal prohibition. (D) is our answer.

Quote:
(E) Governments should place restrictions on cigarette advertisements so as to keep them from encouraging people to engage in unhealthy practices, but should not try to prevent such advertisements.

I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 12
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2009, 11:05
1
1
I wrestled between C and D, but I think the answer is D.

Kendrick is saying that government is justified in preventing (cigarette) advertisements because it encourages unhealthy practices. However, because the same government allows fast food advertisements that also encourage unhealthy practices, they have no right to prevent cigarette advertisements. The voice of this passage is not really relating to advertisements and the legal right therein, but more about restricting the unhealthy practice of cigarettes.

---

A - Goes against his argument

B - This would work if Kendrick is arguing against allowing cigarette advertisements, but he's not.

C - Although it seems a little bit out of place, this answer "works" because it allows for Kendrick to resolve his conflict by postulating that all advertisements should be legal. The second part deflects responsibility from government, which also helps to "resolve the conflict". Yet, I feel that this answer does not hold true to the point of Kendrick's argument.

D - This is the other answer that is plausible. Although there is no mention of financial disincentives in the passage, it flows nicely with my interpretation of the theme. Governments will have no conflict between two advertisements that both encourage unhealthy practices - they will not legally halt advertising. However, they can through other methods carry on what Kendrick feels is a justifiable practice - inhibiting cigarette advertising.

E - I think restrictions and prevention can be argued to be similar - this doesn't resolve the conflict.
Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 143
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2009, 13:08
mikeCoolBoy wrote:
Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so, since such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practice. But cigarette advertisements should remain legal since advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent conflict between Kendrick's statements?

(B) The advertisement of fattening foods, unlike that of cigarettes, should not be prevented, because fattening foods, unlike cigarettes, are not addictive.

(D) Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition.

(E) Governments should place restrictions on cigarette advertisements so as to keep them from encouraging people to engage in unhealthy practices, but should not try to prevent such advertisements.

OA and OE will follow

I'll take a crack at it ...

My summary of the conflict: Governments are justified when they attempt to prevent the advertisement of cigs because smoking cigs is an unhealthy habit. However, cig ads should be legal because advertisements for fatty foods are legal although eating fatty foods is an unhealthy practice.

So what helps to resolve the conflict? I determined that it would be something that would justify the government's actions to prevent the unhealthy habit of cigarette smoking or in other words distinguish cigs from fatty foods.

A) This doesn't add anything to the resolution of the conflict.

B) I like this answer. The government is justified because smoking cigs is an unhealthy practice and is addictive which perpetuates the unhealthy practice. Eating fatty foods, while an unhealthy practice, isn't an addictive practice. This differentiation justifies the government preventative measures and resolves the conflict.

C) Totally irrelevant since it does not resolve the conflict.

D) Again irrelevant since it does not resolve the conflict.

E) This answer is interesting because the government can place restrictions on cig ads but allow those ads to remain legal. My question would be then what about restrictions on ads for fatty foods? The conflict hasn't been resolved in my opinion.

I believe B is the answer.
Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 143
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2009, 20:07
Okay reading this again I think I will change my answer to D.

Here's the reason: financial disincentives allow cig ads to remain legal but allows governments to try to prevent cig advertising by making it financially difficult. This resolves the conflict.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 223
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2009, 11:00
3
OA is D.

The key is to realize of the wording in the passage.

Fact1: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so

Option D explains this apparently contradiction.

Lincfucious wrote:
D - This is the other answer that is plausible. Although there is no mention of financial disincentives in the passage

This is perfectly valid in paradox questions. Anyway, you solved the question nicely. Congratulations + 1
Manager
Joined: 01 Jul 2009
Posts: 168
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2009, 11:10
1
I was inclined to choose either D or E. I dont see much difference between "restrictions" and "financial disincentives", cuz one can consider disincentives some kind of "restriction". Also prohibiting and restricting are not the same, as some argued here. So I think this question was controversial. Both D and E could've been considered correct at some extent.
_________________
Consider giving Kudos if you like the post.
Manager
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 77
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2009, 06:28
i chose D should say im bit lucky with this
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Posts: 37
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2012, 08:59
First thought E, later figured out that E is out of scope because it basically talks about restrictions whereas the question talks about prevention.

D is a better choice because it talks about prevention at the same time circumventing legality
Manager
Status: Bunuel's fan!
Joined: 08 Jul 2011
Posts: 128
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2012, 19:38
I eliminated down to C and E and picked C actually while the answer is D.

I was a bit wary of financial incentives in D. It is a tough question.
Manager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 135
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE: Project Management (Computer Software)
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2012, 02:46
right answer lies in the way one interpret the questions.

Whoever says Answer should be B, must be trying to resolve the conflict following statement :

However questions asks us to resolve conflict between following two statements
- Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so

So essentially kendrick is trying to say that Government should to prevent the Cigarettes Ads by some other measures instead of banning them or making them illegal. Option D states this exactly.

For those who think option E is right answer may be mistaking that it contradicts the main statement by saying "Governments should not try to prevent such advertisements"
_________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://gmatclub.com/forum/a-guide-to-the-official-guide-13-for-gmat-review-134210.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 186
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jun 2012, 06:23

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.
_________________
+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 8
Location: Mexico
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2013, 17:49
it is D because the question focus on its meaning on the Legal issue so that D states something about legalilty. It is a little tricky as it that word showed up at the end of the answer
Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Posts: 53
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2013, 20:37
Previously, I also chose B, then realized my mistake.
I focused on the example of the fact rather than on the fact.
Key here is the facts:
1. Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so.
2. But cigarette advertisements should remain legal (Fatty food is the example of this fact)

Governments should try to prevent the advertisement(Justify fact 1) of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition(Justify fact 2).

So, the only choice that addressed both the facts is choice "D"

Learning: To resolve a paradox, focus on facts not on the examples of facts.
Senior PS Moderator
Status: It always seems impossible until it's done.
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Posts: 737
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2019, 13:04
Bumping up for review. Tricky question.
_________________
Regards,

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” - Yoda (The Empire Strikes Back)
Manager
Joined: 17 Jun 2018
Posts: 52
Schools: IMD '20
GPA: 2.84
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2019, 07:26
Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Posts: 2
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2019, 06:45
can someone help me out why the answer is D and not E.....???
Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2017
Posts: 117
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2019, 08:40
GMATNinja

Can you please explain the solution...
Thanks
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 508
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2019, 08:21
1
GMATNinja wrote:
arpitkansal wrote:

Let's examine each side of the "apparent conflict" in the passage, labeling each "side" as 1 or 2 for clarity:

• Conclusion 1: "Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so"
• Support for conclusion 1: "such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practices."

• Support for conclusion 2: "advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices."

Our task is to find an answer choice that "most helps to resolve the apparent conflict between Kendrick's statements." So, we need to find a statement that explains how both conclusions can be valid at the same time. With that in mind, let's go through the answer choices:

Quote:

This answer choice does not resolve the apparent conflict because it directly contradicts conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal"). (A) is out.

Quote:
(B) The advertisement of fattening foods, unlike that of cigarettes, should not be prevented, because fattening foods, unlike cigarettes, are not addictive.

This answer choice does not resolve the central conflict between the two conclusions. It adds another element (the addictive nature of cigarettes) to support conclusion 1, but it does not explain why "cigarette advertisements should remain legal" in light of this further evidence. (B) is out.

Quote:

Quote:
(D) Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition.

This one is interesting. The first part of the statement ("Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes") fits nicely with conclusion 1, that "governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so".

So far so good, but how does it stack up against conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal")? Answer choice (D) specifies that governments should use "financial disincentives rather than... legal prohibition" to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes.

So, answer choice (D) supports both sides of the apparent conflict. Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes, but should do so through financial disincentives rather than legal prohibition. (D) is our answer.

Quote:
(E) Governments should place restrictions on cigarette advertisements so as to keep them from encouraging people to engage in unhealthy practices, but should not try to prevent such advertisements.

I hope that helps!

Thank you GMATNinja for such an awesome explanation.

Now I know why D is correct and B is incorrect. Loved the way you broke down the argument.

+1
_________________
Re: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from   [#permalink] 23 Mar 2019, 08:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by