It is currently 16 Dec 2017, 01:27

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2015
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 57 [3], given: 13

Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2016, 02:04
3
This post received
KUDOS
14
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:06) correct 43% (01:31) wrong based on 775 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.


OA to follow after some discussion.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Please take a moment to hit Kudos if you like my post :)


Last edited by WaitingSurprises on 03 Jul 2016, 00:38, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 57 [3], given: 13

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Jan 2016
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 9

Reviews Badge
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2016, 07:33
I think the question asks to support the consequence of implementing the plan.
Option A C D - out of scope.
Between B and E , I choose B.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 9

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 58

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Schools: ISB '18
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.7
Premium Member
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2016, 11:01
Only E strengthens the argument. Other choices are irrelevent

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 16

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Posts: 104

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 3959

Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2016, 23:28
I will also choose B since E gives the reason for health related issue, however it does not strengthen the consequence of the government plan

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 3959

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2015
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 13

Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jul 2016, 00:40
updated the OA.

Cheers to all !!
_________________

Please take a moment to hit Kudos if you like my post :)

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 13

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2013
Posts: 65

Kudos [?]: 41 [3], given: 243

Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2016, 08:26
3
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
ritikk13 wrote:
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.


OA to follow after some discussion.



The conclusion is that by limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, govt. would NOT succeed in reducing smoke-related illnesses. Option E clearly states that the smoke-related illnesses are caused Not by Nicotine but by Tar from cigarette smoke.

Kudos [?]: 41 [3], given: 243

5 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 903

Kudos [?]: 456 [5], given: 69

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2016, 09:59
5
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
ritikk13 wrote:
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.


OA to follow after some discussion.


Conclusion says that the plan will not be successful , or that the illnesses will not reduce.

It gives a supporting premise that number of cigarettes that people smoke will increase.

Our job is to find something that is convincing enough that either the illnesses will remain same or will increase. It can be done by two ways:-

1) Increased number of cigarettes will give equal or more amount of nicotine to smokers.
2) Increased number of cigarettes will expose customer to another substance that is known to increase smoking-related disorders.

(A) Over half of the nonsmoking adults in Normark have smoked cigarettes in the past. We don't know if plan will be unsuccessful.

(B) most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain somewhat less than the maximum amount of nicotine permitted by law. It's good. Reducing nicotine further will reduce illnesses? Not answer

(C) Inexpensive, smoke-free sources of nicotine, such as nicotine gum and nicotine skin patches, have recently become available in Normark. We are concentrating only on cigarrettes right now.

(D) Many smokers in Normark already spend a large proportion of their disposable income on cigarettes. Will the plan be successful? No answer

(E) The main cause of smoking-related illnesses is not nicotine but tar in cigarette smoke. Oops!! loophole in the plan. Govt. is not aiming the right culprit, and increase in number of cigarrates will actually increase the illness
_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Kudos [?]: 456 [5], given: 69

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2016
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 5

Schools: Sloan '19 (II)
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2016, 10:02
I am very curious where this question is from, because it is a pretty dodgy CR question.
First of all, unless it is a 500-600 level CR question, very rarely is the answer choice going to directly address the conclusion with an outside fact. Tougher CR questions address the flow of logic versus some obvious blunt statement.

A, C, and D can be eliminated right away. B and E are the least terrible choices and still neither make a compelling case, and on GMAT we know that one of the answer choices is always without a doubt, the correct choice.

E says the MAIN cause of illness is some other thing, but the plan could still work even if direct inhalation of smoke was not the main problem- let's say it's an extremely close second; imagine a population of 1000 adult smokers, 500 get sick from tar, 499 get sick from regular cigarette smoking, and in such a case the plan would very well succeed.

That being said, I'd pick E with a heavy sigh, and after eliminating all the other choices. B says most of the current cigs on the market already contain "somewhat" less than the maximum, whatever that means. It's a trap because you're lured into thinking nothing will change, the proposed reduction in nicotine may not affect the majority of cigs people are smoking so it's business as usual. However, let's imagine our world of smokers once again. Let's say 999/1000 people smoke low-nicotine cigs, and one guy smokes the heavy stuff. After the plan, that one guy would absorb less nicotine and therefore the plan would be "successful." I'll just say it, B is awful because most high level CR questions want you to attack the logic, and the claim that more people will probably smoke seems the most vulnerable to attack.

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 5

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Posts: 76

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 25

Location: India
Concentration: Technology
Schools: AGSM '20 (A)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 4
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2016, 23:44
LXVE wrote:
I am very curious where this question is from, because it is a pretty dodgy CR question.
First of all, unless it is a 500-600 level CR question, very rarely is the answer choice going to directly address the conclusion with an outside fact. Tougher CR questions address the flow of logic versus some obvious blunt statement.

A, C, and D can be eliminated right away. B and E are the least terrible choices and still neither make a compelling case, and on GMAT we know that one of the answer choices is always without a doubt, the correct choice.

E says the MAIN cause of illness is some other thing, but the plan could still work even if direct inhalation of smoke was not the main problem- let's say it's an extremely close second; imagine a population of 1000 adult smokers, 500 get sick from tar, 499 get sick from regular cigarette smoking, and in such a case the plan would very well succeed.

That being said, I'd pick E with a heavy sigh, and after eliminating all the other choices. B says most of the current cigs on the market already contain "somewhat" less than the maximum, whatever that means. It's a trap because you're lured into thinking nothing will change, the proposed reduction in nicotine may not affect the majority of cigs people are smoking so it's business as usual. However, let's imagine our world of smokers once again. Let's say 999/1000 people smoke low-nicotine cigs, and one guy smokes the heavy stuff. After the plan, that one guy would absorb less nicotine and therefore the plan would be "successful." I'll just say it, B is awful because most high level CR questions want you to attack the logic, and the claim that more people will probably smoke seems the most vulnerable to attack.


It is from GMATPrep Exam Pack 2.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 25

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: 2 months to go
Joined: 11 Oct 2015
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 36

GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.8
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2016, 03:06
This is a though one, first it's not a strengthen question, rather an inference question.*
The addition of the "if true" simply means that we can consider the answers as additional premises which MUST MAKE SURE that the conclusion is bullet proof.

Analysis of the argument:
"The government of Normark plans to reduce the maximum allowable quantity of nicotine".
"However it will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes".
@conclusion -> "There won't be a reduction in smoke related illnesses".

Which is the only question that can tell us that for sure the plan is not going to reduce the incidence of illnesses?
E) Because it tells us that the Government is targeting the wrong substance! Even if people won't increase their cigarette consumption, they will still consume the same amount of tar, so there won't be a reduction in illnesses.

Answer E).

* The difference is that in inference questions what we add MUST BE TRUE, there cannot be an ounce of doubt, while strengthen questions let us make further assumptions to reach the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 36

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 342

Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2016, 22:49
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.

maximum allowable quantity of nicotine
Before =100
After = 50

reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes.
Before = 100*1
After = 50*2
so cigarette should be double this time to have the equivalent effect.


implementing this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking related illnesses.

Goal is to reduce 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.



(B) most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain somewhat less than the maximum amount of nicotine permitted by law. Even if is true so let say most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain 80 instead of 100, reducing it to 50 will help. There is an assumption in this option that most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain half of 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. :- So if it is tar then no matter how much Nicotine is in the cigarette, no effect on illness so Correct.

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 342

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Sep 2014
Posts: 88

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 254

Schools: IIMB
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2016, 11:23
As per my understanding D is the correct answer as it says people are already spending huge part of their income right
now on smoking , so they will not hesitate to spend more and buy more and more cigs to compensate reduction in nicotine
hence the plan is ineffective.

Please explain how this is incorrect. E seems strongly out of scope :(.

Aside to this can someone please tell me the strategy of dealing with strengthen questions. I prethink my answer keepin
in mind what could be assumptions/weakness but it jst makes me choose wrong ans over and over again. I read somewher
that you should not keep assumption in mind why selecting ans? is this correct ? please help.

Regards
Megha

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 254

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 208

CAT Tests
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2016, 19:11
I still consider B as the right answer, lets take the amount of Nicotine level in the cigarette was orginally 500 gms instead of 800 gms( legally accepted level), thereby the people had been smoking atleast 2 cigarettes to reach the required nicotine level. Since the question premises states that the Govenment would reduce the level of nicotine, so obviously people would smoke more than two cigarettes to maintain the required Nicotine level, so the effect would not change. option E looks irrelevant to me. Can someone please be kind enough to prove my assumption is wrong.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 208

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 210

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2016, 22:34
megha_2709 wrote:
As per my understanding D is the correct answer as it says people are already spending huge part of their income right
now on smoking , so they will not hesitate to spend more and buy more and more cigs to compensate reduction in nicotine
hence the plan is ineffective.

Please explain how this is incorrect. E seems strongly out of scope :(.

Aside to this can someone please tell me the strategy of dealing with strengthen questions. I prethink my answer keepin
in mind what could be assumptions/weakness but it jst makes me choose wrong ans over and over again. I read somewher
that you should not keep assumption in mind why selecting ans? is this correct ? please help.

Regards
Megha


Hi Megha,

Options D, is actually irrelevant, How are money and consumption of cig connected?
If the premise had said, the govt intents to increase the price of cig, then we could have evaluated the above statement as either a strengthener or a weakener.

Now here the main argument is
Reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes

So the answer choice should directly try to strengthen it.

This is done by E.

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

Now the govt says it will reduce the levels of Nicotine.

Say from 5x quantity in one Cig to 2.5x per cig, but Tar another component of Cig remains the same.

Thus though the Nicotine levels in the Cig have dropped, but are they the cause of illnesses? No.

The main cause is Tar, and the govt is not doing anything to reduce it, thus the main point/argument raised by the Author will be strengthened.

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 210

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 210

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2016, 22:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
Karthic26 wrote:
I still consider B as the right answer, lets take the amount of Nicotine level in the cigarette was orginally 500 gms instead of 800 gms( legally accepted level), thereby the people had been smoking atleast 2 cigarettes to reach the required nicotine level. Since the question premises states that the Govenment would reduce the level of nicotine, so obviously people would smoke more than two cigarettes to maintain the required Nicotine level, so the effect would not change. option E looks irrelevant to me. Can someone please be kind enough to prove my assumption is wrong.


Hi Karthic,

What we are looking here is to find a statement that directly supports the main point of the Author i.e Reducing the Nicotine in Cig is not going to reduce the smoking related illnesses..

(B) Most cigarettes currently sold in Normark contain somewhat less than the maximum amount of nicotine permitted by law. Ok, so what?

Are we told that by reducing the Nicotine level, the smoking related illnesses will be reduced? We are just told that Addiction to nicotine prevents many people from quitting smoking.

What (B) says is that the Cig sold in Normark already contain less than the permissible limits of Nicotine, so even if people get fewer nicotine in their Cig, the illnesses may or may not reduce.

If it reduces than the Govt plan will succeed, if it does not than it wont succeed.

What we are looking for is something that strengthens the Authors argument and not the Govt solution.

Reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes, implementing this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking related illnesses.

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

This is directly strengthening the Authors claim.

Initially I was smoking 5x of Nicotine + 2x of Tar( Per Cig),
Govt reduces Nicotine
Now I Smoke 2.5x of Nicotine + 2x of Tar( Per Cig) , to fulfill my Nicotine needs I will buy 2 cig

So, I am actually taking in 5x of Nicotine + 4x of Tar.

The consumption of Tar is increased, and this Tar is the main cause of Smoking related illnesses and thus the govt plan does not succeed.

Hope it helps.

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 210

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Sep 2014
Posts: 88

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 254

Schools: IIMB
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2016, 07:08
believer700

Thank you for explaining so well +1Kudos , I Guess yeah it makes sense with E. I have been practicing strengthen since so long still keep choosing the wrong ones. I am left with so less time and exhausted all materials still I think I am nowhere :(. Any tips for the same will be appreciated.
Regards
Megha

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 254

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Posts: 94

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 75

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 3: 680 Q48 V35
GPA: 2.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2016, 01:58
Karthic26 wrote:
I still consider B as the right answer, lets take the amount of Nicotine level in the cigarette was orginally 500 gms instead of 800 gms( legally accepted level), thereby the people had been smoking atleast 2 cigarettes to reach the required nicotine level. Since the question premises states that the Govenment would reduce the level of nicotine, so obviously people would smoke more than two cigarettes to maintain the required Nicotine level, so the effect would not change. option E looks irrelevant to me. Can someone please be kind enough to prove my assumption is wrong.


Hello Karthic26,

I also went for B but realized it is wrong. Here is my line of reasoning:

1000(current max level nicotine permitted by govt) > 800(most cigarettes contain somewhat less than max) > 500 (new limit proposed by govt)

--People may or may not smoke more cigarettes in order to compensate lower amount of nicotine. Please note the wording will probably cause people addicted to smoke more Thus, if people chose to smoke more cigarettes, then argument is strengthen otherwise NOT.


1000(current max level nicotine permitted by govt) > 500(new limit proposed by govt) > 200 (most cigarettes contain somewhat less than the current max)

-- It will definitely not reduce the illness and, in turn, strengthen the argument. Even if the maximum limit is reduced to half, people will not smoke more because they are already accustomed to far lower limits of nicotine.


So, choice B present two scenarios in which one is strengthen the argument and another may strengthen the argument but not always. Hence, choice is incorrect.

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 75

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Mar 2017
Posts: 160

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jun 2017, 02:53
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.
_________________

I hate long and complicated explanations!

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Mar 2017
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

CAT Tests
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2017, 10:29
IMO: Cause & Effect Relationship

There are two different Points in the argument namely:
1. Smoking-related illnesses, that the government wants to reduce
(by) 2. Nicotine, in that the government reduces the quantity.

Where is there a weakness in that argument? The government assumes that nicotine is directly attributed to smoking-related illnesses.
So, what if there is another more prevailing factor that causes smoking-related illnesses?

E) states that there is a third factor which is the MAIN Causes, thereby the conclusion of the government is weakened, and at the same time the Conclusion of the author is strengthened, is that the Plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking-related illnesses.

(Just for additional note: One may conclude, that there might be still an indirect effect of nicotine on incidence of smoking-related illnesses, because nicotine increases smoking and thereby the exposure to tar in the cigarette smoke. However, it is important to keep in might that answers choices do have a comparative value, and the effect on the validity of a Conclusion in a correct Strengthen-Answer Choices can range from just a little bit (1%) up to 100% necessary (i.e. Assumptions))

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1365

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 1446

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Dec 2017, 22:28
this is a great question b/c the question causes annoying, but interesting confusions.
Using POE, I did not find the right answer b/c of confusions.

E is indeed the answer.
The word "consequences " in question stem makes test takers think of "reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes. " as the main conclusion, but the true conclusion is "this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking related illnesses. "

Also, this is the essential premise "Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem in Normark", not the other premise.

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 1446

Re: Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem   [#permalink] 09 Dec 2017, 22:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.