Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 04:48 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 04:48
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Strengthen|            
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
130
Given Kudos: 5,193
Location: India
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 534
Kudos: 130
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem 05 Mar 2025, 06:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi experts GMATNinja KarishmaB ChiranjeevSingh GMATIntensive

I understood why option E is correct but have hard time rejecting option D.

My reasoning is if many smokers in Normark already spend a large proportion of their disposable income on cigarettes then they won't mind to spend more money to buy more cigarettes (it's like I am spending 40% of my salary then 50-60% shouldn't be an issue) when nicotine is reduced by half by the govt., thus, increases my confidence that the plan won't work.
Could you please explain me where I am faltering here? Is it the case that option D is also a strengthener but option E has higher magnitude?
It would be very helpful if you can elaborate on this.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem 05 Mar 2025, 23:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan
Hi experts GMATNinja KarishmaB ChiranjeevSingh GMATIntensive

I understood why option E is correct but have hard time rejecting option D.

My reasoning is if many smokers in Normark already spend a large proportion of their disposable income on cigarettes then they won't mind to spend more money to buy more cigarettes (it's like I am spending 40% of my salary then 50-60% shouldn't be an issue) when nicotine is reduced by half by the govt., thus, increases my confidence that the plan won't work.
Could you please explain me where I am faltering here? Is it the case that option D is also a strengthener but option E has higher magnitude?
It would be very helpful if you can elaborate on this.
Show more

If someone is already spending a large proportion of their income on something, then it means they cannot spend a lot more than that. Think of real world - there will be a ton of other necessary expenses. If one is already spending a large proportion on something, they likely cannot afford to increase that expenditure even further. One may not mind it, but one likely does not have that option.
User avatar
Ziniya
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jul 2022
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 24
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 24
Kudos: 0
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem 06 May 2025, 13:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have to support that the plan will not achieve its goal. Goal is to reduce illness.
Reasoning given is ,if nicotine is decreased per cigarette ,people will smoke more.

It means that author assumes that more cigarette consumed to balance the less nicotine.
Option E says its because they will consume more tar. Still don;t get how E is correct.
KarishmaB please help where my approach is lacking
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem 06 May 2025, 20:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ziniya
I have to support that the plan will not achieve its goal. Goal is to reduce illness.
Reasoning given is ,if nicotine is decreased per cigarette ,people will smoke more.

It means that author assumes that more cigarette consumed to balance the less nicotine.
Option E says its because they will consume more tar. Still don;t get how E is correct.
KarishmaB please help where my approach is lacking
Show more

Option (E) says that the bigger cause of worry in a cig is consumption of tar, not nicotine. That is what makes people sick.
Their daily amount of Nicotine is what people are looking for (that is what is addictive). To make up the amount of nicotine, they will start smoking more cigs to make up (if nicotine amount is reduced in cigs). In that case, they will end up consuming more tar too (because more cigs will lead to more tar). And hence may actually get sicker, not better for sure.
User avatar
Ziniya
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jul 2022
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 24
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 24
Kudos: 0
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem 07 May 2025, 01:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB I understand how E is correct. However I am having difficulty reaching there with my thought process:
Plan : to reduce nicotine quantity
Goal : to reduce smoke related illness

Reasoning given behind plan : less nicotine -> less addiction -> less smoking -> less illness

Author weakens/destroys above plan by attacking assumption behind the plan : smoking will not reduce if nicotine is reduced i.e , less nicotine-> more smoking
Author conclusion : plan will fail i.e illness will not reduce (it doesn't say illness will increase)
Reasoning by author : to make up for nicotine , smoking will increase
assumption by author : ? (what should be the assumption . is it that more smoking -> more illness?)

Ques asks to support Authors conclusion. i.e something new information along line of author's assumption which says illness will not reduce or illness will increase.

Saying that nicotine is not the reason itself, it is tar supports that more smoking -> more illness.

Please correct if I am approaching wrong.
KarishmaB
Ziniya
I have to support that the plan will not achieve its goal. Goal is to reduce illness.
Reasoning given is ,if nicotine is decreased per cigarette ,people will smoke more.

It means that author assumes that more cigarette consumed to balance the less nicotine.
Option E says its because they will consume more tar. Still don;t get how E is correct.
KarishmaB please help where my approach is lacking

Option (E) says that the bigger cause of worry in a cig is consumption of tar, not nicotine. That is what makes people sick.
Their daily amount of Nicotine is what people are looking for (that is what is addictive). To make up the amount of nicotine, they will start smoking more cigs to make up (if nicotine amount is reduced in cigs). In that case, they will end up consuming more tar too (because more cigs will lead to more tar). And hence may actually get sicker, not better for sure.
Show more
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem 07 May 2025, 22:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We are given in the argument:
However, reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes.

Say previously someone smoked 1 cig a day. 1 cig has 10 mg of nicotine and 10 mg of tar.
Now the govt reduces nicotine to 5 mg.
We are given that now he will likely start smoking 2 cigs a day. 2 cigs will give 10 mg of nicotine and 20 mg of tar (tar is not being reduced)

If tar is the culprit, the person is likely in a worse position.



Ziniya
KarishmaB I understand how E is correct. However I am having difficulty reaching there with my thought process:
Plan : to reduce nicotine quantity
Goal : to reduce smoke related illness

Reasoning given behind plan : less nicotine -> less addiction -> less smoking -> less illness

Author weakens/destroys above plan by attacking assumption behind the plan : smoking will not reduce if nicotine is reduced i.e , less nicotine-> more smoking
Author conclusion : plan will fail i.e illness will not reduce (it doesn't say illness will increase)
Reasoning by author : to make up for nicotine , smoking will increase
assumption by author : ? (what should be the assumption . is it that more smoking -> more illness?)

Ques asks to support Authors conclusion. i.e something new information along line of author's assumption which says illness will not reduce or illness will increase.

Saying that nicotine is not the reason itself, it is tar supports that more smoking -> more illness.

Please correct if I am approaching wrong.
KarishmaB
Ziniya
I have to support that the plan will not achieve its goal. Goal is to reduce illness.
Reasoning given is ,if nicotine is decreased per cigarette ,people will smoke more.

It means that author assumes that more cigarette consumed to balance the less nicotine.
Option E says its because they will consume more tar. Still don;t get how E is correct.
KarishmaB please help where my approach is lacking

Option (E) says that the bigger cause of worry in a cig is consumption of tar, not nicotine. That is what makes people sick.
Their daily amount of Nicotine is what people are looking for (that is what is addictive). To make up the amount of nicotine, they will start smoking more cigs to make up (if nicotine amount is reduced in cigs). In that case, they will end up consuming more tar too (because more cigs will lead to more tar). And hence may actually get sicker, not better for sure.
Show more
User avatar
btsaami
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2023
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 128
Own Kudos:
34
Given Kudos: 580
Posts: 128
Kudos: 34
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem 26 Jul 2025, 09:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion: implementing this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking related illnesses.
Premise: reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes.
Prethinking: Option which should support that this plan of reducing nicotine will not be successful missed- by supporting smoking more cigerrette or confirm why more cigerrates means more illness
Why correct?(E) The main cause of smoking-related illnesses is not nicotine but tar in cigarette smoke.??--> This provides an alternate explanation why the plan might not work. If the main cause of illness is not nicotine but tar then smoking more cigerrates will automatically increase the illness. therefore supportingthe argument.
Why wrong?
(A) Over half of the nonsmoking adults in Normark have smoked cigarettes in the past. --> Non smokers switching to smoking give no info about whether the addiction will be reduced by reducing the amount of nicotine.

(B) most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain somewhat less than the maximum amount of nicotine permitted by law. --> this doesnt explain whther reducing qty of nicotine even further will smoking related illness.

(C) Inexpensive, smoke-free sources of nicotine, such as nicotine gum and nicotine skin patches, have recently become available in Normark.--> Out of scope as the argument is about reduction in somking illnesses by reducing the qty of nicotine.

(D) Many smokers in Normark already spend a large proportion of their disposable income on cigarettes.--> This can be tempting if we think people can spend more on cigerrates so they will buy more of it and therefore the plan might not work. Howver, if look at it since they are spending large proportion of their disposable income on this they might not be able to spend more on cigarettes. This in turn will increase the efficcy of the plan and wekane the argument rather than strengthen it.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts