Last visit was: 28 Apr 2026, 10:37

It is currently 28 Apr 2026, 10:37

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem

1 2

agrasan

Joined: 18 Jan 2024

Last visit: 28 Apr 2026

Posts: 678

Own Kudos:

177

Given Kudos: 6,492

Location: India

Posts: 678

Kudos: 177

05 Mar 2025, 06:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 28 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,447

Own Kudos:

79,437

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,447

Kudos: 79,437

05 Mar 2025, 23:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

agrasan

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.

Ziniya

Joined: 30 Jul 2022

Last visit: 08 Apr 2026

Posts: 43

Given Kudos: 36

Posts: 43

Kudos: 0

06 May 2025, 13:21

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 28 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,447

Own Kudos:

79,437

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,447

Kudos: 79,437

06 May 2025, 20:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Ziniya

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.

Ziniya

Joined: 30 Jul 2022

Last visit: 08 Apr 2026

Posts: 43

Given Kudos: 36

Posts: 43

Kudos: 0

07 May 2025, 01:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 28 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,447

Own Kudos:

79,437

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,447

Kudos: 79,437

07 May 2025, 22:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

Ziniya

btsaami

Joined: 03 Feb 2023

Last visit: 06 Apr 2026

Posts: 128

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 580

Posts: 128

Kudos: 37

26 Jul 2025, 09:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

Rishm

Joined: 05 May 2024

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 250

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 67

Location: India

Schools: Johnson '27 LBS '27 IESE '27

GPA: 10

WE:Consulting (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: Johnson '27 LBS '27 IESE '27

Posts: 250

Kudos: 22

03 Feb 2026, 07:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

Great question and great answer, but not sure if these will turn up on real GMAT questions, i think C and E both deserves to be a strengthener cause nicotine causes health to deteriorate in real life. Keeping aside the whole short passage and logically thinking in real world scenario, C makes more noise

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 28 Apr 2026

Posts: 109,950

Own Kudos:

811,750

[1]

Given Kudos: 105,927

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,950

Kudos: 811,750

[1]

03 Feb 2026, 07:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Rishm

Several posts on the previous two pages explain why E fits better than C here, so please go through those explanations. Hope this helps.

Also, this question appears in both GMAT Prep mocks and the Official Guide, which means at some point it has been used on real GMAT exams.

Alilee

Joined: 10 Jun 2023

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 16

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 3

Location: United States

Posts: 16

Kudos: 1

28 Feb 2026, 14:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

Argument: reducing nicotine does not help decrease smoking related illness
(C) Inexpensive, smoke-free sources of nicotine, such as nicotine gum and nicotine skin patches, have recently become available in Normark.
The argument talks about smoking, this choice doesn't talk about smoking at all.
(E) The main cause of smoking-related illnesses is not nicotine but tar in cigarette smoke.
This explains why reducing nicotine doesn't help with smoking related ilness bc. it's other parts of smoking a cigriate that cauases ilness

WaitingSurprises

Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem in Normark, and since addiction to nicotine prevents many people from quitting smoking, the government of Normark plans to reduce the maximum allowable quantity of nicotine per cigarette by half over the next five years. However, reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes. Therefore implementing this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking related illnesses.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument about the consequences of implementing the Normarkian government's plan.

(A) Over half of the nonsmoking adults in Normark have smoked cigarettes in the past.

(B) most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain somewhat less than the maximum amount of nicotine permitted by law.

(C) Inexpensive, smoke-free sources of nicotine, such as nicotine gum and nicotine skin patches, have recently become available in Normark.

(D) Many smokers in Normark already spend a large proportion of their disposable income on cigarettes.

(E) The main cause of smoking-related illnesses is not nicotine but tar in cigarette smoke.

Show Spoiler

ID: 500409

02154

Rickooreoisb

Joined: 18 Jul 2025

Last visit: 05 Apr 2026

Posts: 157

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 575

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Marketing

GPA: 9

WE:Investment Banking (Finance: Investment Banking)

Posts: 157

Kudos: 41

01 Mar 2026, 18:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

MartyMurray

For option B -
Say allowed nicotin level as per law is 90%; new law says you need to keep it at 50%; now smoking companies while keeping it at 80% (as per question where they had kept it at lower level than allowed by law) but with the reduced level they will now keep it at 50%

So smoking 1 Cig earlier was equal to nicotin of 80
Now with 2 Cig it will become 50 + 50 i.e. 100, much higher than 80
Thus B is harmful and thus plan will fail

In E - The main cause of smoking-related illnesses is not nicotine but tar in cigarette smoke.
Do we need it to be the main cause for conclusion to fail ? Maybe no. So I rejected it.

Can you help me understand where am I going wrong

MartyMurray

Tutor

Joined: 11 Aug 2023

Last visit: 28 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,852

Own Kudos:

7,133

[2]

Given Kudos: 213

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 1,852

Kudos: 7,133

[2]

01 Mar 2026, 19:11

Kudos

Bookmarks

Rickooreoisb

For option B -
Say allowed nicotin level as per law is 90%; new law says you need to keep it at 50%; now smoking companies while keeping it at 80% (as per question where they had kept it at lower level than allowed by law) but with the reduced level they will now keep it at 50%

So smoking 1 Cig earlier was equal to nicotin of 80
Now with 2 Cig it will become 50 + 50 i.e. 100, much higher than 80
Thus B is harmful and thus plan will fail

Notice that the passage does not say that, because of the reduction in nicotine per cigarette, people will double the number of cigarettes they smoke. In fact and what makes more sense is that they may just increase the number sufficiently to consume the same amount of nicotine as before.

So, your above analysis involves the unsupported assumption that smokers will double the number of cigarettes that they smoke.

Quote:

In E - The main cause of smoking-related illnesses is not nicotine but tar in cigarette smoke.
Do we need it to be the main cause for conclusion to fail ? Maybe no. So I rejected it.

Can you help me understand where am I going wrong

This is not an Assumption question. It is a Strengthen question. So, the correct answer doesn't have to be something we "need." Rather, the correct answer has only to be something that strengthens the case for conclusion.

(E) does so by indicating that, if people smoke more cigarettes, as the author of the argument says they likely will, they will be exposed to more tar, the main cause of smoking-related illnesses. That information indicates that implementing the plan will likely result in an increase, rather than a decrease, in the incidence of smoking-related illnesses.

sriramsundaram91

Joined: 12 Mar 2018

Last visit: 24 Apr 2026

Posts: 79

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 116

GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27 Verified score

GPA: 4

Products:

GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27 Verified score

Posts: 79

Kudos: 89

26 Mar 2026, 09:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

Typical GMAT trap question -- People miss critically reading the question i.e. question is asking how to weaken the "consequences" of implementing the Normarkian Govt's Plans, Govt thinks Nicotine -> illness, lower nicotine = lower illness, obviously to make you confused passage states people will smoke more cigarettes and match the total nicotine consumption, but question is about consequence -- Plan is to reduce nicotine consumption to half and consequence illness reduction, this won't happen if reason for being ill is Tar.

WaitingSurprises

Show Spoiler

ID: 500409

02154