GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 01 Jun 2020, 06:10

### 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

# Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 1227
Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2019, 10:21
1
5
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

49% (02:14) correct 51% (02:30) wrong based on 345 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city. Although the effectiveness of such education programs is debatable, there is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking. Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning in the argument above?

(A) A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer.
(B) Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.
(C) Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes.
(D) People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed.
(E) Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding if they are successful.

_________________
Non progredi est regredi
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 658
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.6
WE: Operations (Consumer Products)
Re: Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2019, 21:11
2
Quote:
Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city. Although the effectiveness of such education programs is debatable, there is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking. Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

Understand :
1. Activists want EXPANDED prograns... PROGRAMS are paid by rev from INCRESED TAXES
2. STIFF increas in tax = ciggi sales drop substantiallu

CONCLUSION : Taxes themselves= reduction in smoking

Reasoning : the mayor thinks that smoking will reduce becasue the smokers will be demotivated to smoke as the tax is increased on ciggi... he supports his claim by survey results which show drop in SALES of ciggi following the tax increase

I WANT : an answer that will temme that EVEN THO SALES HAVE DROPPED IN "CITIES" , THE AMOUNT OF SMOKING DONE MAY BE THE SAME !!

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning in the argument above?
- we should attack the REASONING and not the conclusion !!!

(A) A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer.
- opposite

(B) Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.
- no useful comparison !!

Quote:
(C) Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes.
- BINGO!! "surrounding a city "...we know sales will drop "IN THE CITY" ...what if sales increase SUBSTANTUIALLY surrounding the city ??? !!!

(D) People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed.
- we already know that the program may not be effective..so this choice is useless

(E) Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding if they are successful.
- OUT OF SCOPE
Director
Joined: 08 Aug 2017
Posts: 728
Re: Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2019, 23:00
1
"Area surrounding the city"- is it within the city or outside the city which is imposing taxes on cigarettes?

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2445
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2019, 04:41
1
Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city. Although the effectiveness of such education programs is debatable, there is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking. Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

Type- weaken
Conclusion- Cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

(A) A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer.- incorrect, we don't know whether this tax will be burdensome to the average cigarette consumer. At worst, it might strengthen the argument
(B) Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.- incorrect, we already know in our argument that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes
(C) Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes.- Correct; though the sales of cigarette within city limits will fall, the amount of smoking might continue to stay the same as people will buy cigarette from neighboring areas
(D) People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed.- Irrelevant
(E) Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding if they are successful. - Irrelevant

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Manager
Status: As cheeks from my insta feed say: soon...
Joined: 16 Jan 2016
Posts: 67
Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2019, 03:15
Skywalker18 wrote:
Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city. Although the effectiveness of such education programs is debatable, there is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking. Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

Type- weaken
Conclusion- Cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

(A) A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer.- incorrect, we don't know whether this tax will be burdensome to the average cigarette consumer. At worst, it might strengthen the argument
(B) Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.- incorrect, we already know in our argument that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes
(C) Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes.- Correct; though the sales of cigarette within city limits will fall, the amount of smoking might continue to stay the same as people will buy cigarette from neighboring areas
(D) People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed.- Irrelevant
(E) Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding if they are successful. - Irrelevant

Hi, skywalker

Well, it is obvious in the real world that you buy cigarettes only to smoke (I don't know any other aims)
but is it implied in the GMAT world that cigarette sales lead to cigarette consumption?
Thank you
SVP
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Posts: 1569
Location: United States
Re: Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2019, 04:45
Akela wrote:
Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city. Although the effectiveness of such education programs is debatable, there is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking. Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning in the argument above?

(A) A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer.
(B) Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.
(C) Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes.
(D) People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed.
(E) Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding if they are successful.

ARGUMENT
[conclusion] there is strong evidence that increase in taxes would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking, versus expanding antismoking education; [premise] surveys show that cigarettes sales drop after imposing stiff taxes; [assumption] sales drop after increased taxes is because consumers reduced smoking;

WEAKEN
what if the drop in sales wasn't due to less people smoking? attack the premise.

(A) "burdensome to the average consumer" this may not be the case in the mayor's city, maybe they are all ultra-rich! out.
(B) "more likely TO CONTINUE buying" so they will continue to buy, but this could mean they will buy more/less/equal amount of cigarettes; out.
(D) "informed are less likely to smoke than not" this information is already stated implicitly in the passage, it also does not attack the premise (+tax=sales drop=-smokers); out.
(E) "if they are successful" but what if they are not? irrelevant, out.

Answer (C): "sales increase in surrounding areas of a city where cig taxes increases" this attacks the premise showing that sales drop wasn't caused by less people smoking, but bc they starting buying elsewhere!
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2019
Posts: 9
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2019, 02:45
A case of attacking the right words.
Premise states : Survey - cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.
Conclusion states : Increased taxes on cigarettes -> Reduction in smoking

Logical Gap : Does low sale is city imply an overall decrease in smoking.

Option C widens this gap by implying that although city sales dropped, people sought to buying cheaper cigarettes from outskirts. Thus, not affecting the overall smoking in city.
Intern
Status: I am striving for 760. Any feedback is appreciated :)
Joined: 05 Mar 2020
Posts: 5
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
Re: Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2020, 22:54
Here is my understanding:

- Activists want to expand antismoking education programs paid by revenue from taxes on cigarettes.
- The effectiveness of programs is debatable,
- However, strong evidence show that the taxes would reduce smoking.
- WHY? Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax on cigarettes.
=> Why the argument is WRONG? It fail to consider other factors that happen after the tax was imposed, such as increases sales in other area or people secretly buy smuggled cigarette ...

(A) A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer. => If so, the tax works quite well. This premise does not weaken the argument at all, but merely restates fact. OUT!
(B) Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason. => If they continue to buy cigarette because cigarette is taxed, then the taxes do not help in the reduction of smoking. IRRELEVANT! (We want to weaken the conclusion that taxes reduces cigarette sales EFFECTIVELY)
(C) Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes. => Voila! even though cigarette is consumed less in the city but people try to walk around by purchasing cigarette somewhere else. CORRECT!
(D) People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed. => This premise contradicts the original premise, which states the effectiveness in in doubt. When dealing with Weaken CR, we try to avoid attack the original premise (please fix me I am wrong). OUT!
(E) Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding if they are successful. => This information is not any related to our discussion. OUT!
Re: Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismokin   [#permalink] 12 May 2020, 22:54