Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. Despite a

Question

Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. Despite a significant decline in cigarette smoking in the last two decades, however, there has been no comparable decline in the number of people killed in home fires.

Each one of the following statements, if true, over the last two decades, helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy above EXCEPT:

(A) Compared to other types of home fires, home fires caused by smoking in bed usually cause relatively little damage before they are extinguished.

(B) Home fires caused by smoking in bed often break out after the home’s occupants have fallen asleep.

(C) Smokers who smoke in bed tend to be heavy smokers who are less likely to quit smoking than are smokers who do not smoke in bed.

(D) An increasing number of people have been killed in home fires that started in the kitchen.

(E) Population densities have increased, with the result that one home fire can cause more deaths than in previous decades.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(B)

One last question, and in it we’re faced with another apparent discrepancy. This time, however, we’re looking for the one choice that doesn’t help explain the unusual result or finding. First, we get some background info: smoking in bed has long been a major cause of home fires. And here’s the surprise: even though cigarette smoking has significantly declined over the last twenty years, the number of people killed in home fires hasn’t declined accordingly. There are at least four good reasons why this is so, and we’ll see those below in the wrong answer choices. But we’re looking for the one that doesn’t help solve the mystery. And (B) could only deepen the mystery: if the fires caused by smoking in bed tend to take place after the home’s occupants have fallen asleep, then home fires caused by smoking would seem even deadlier, since it’s hard to evacuate your home when you’re asleep. If fires caused by smoking are especially deadly, then it is all the more confusing that a reduction in smoking has not led to a reduction of the number of people killed in home fires. So (B) is no help, which means that it is the credited response.

(A) If (A) is true, then bed-smoking fires aren’t likely to cause many fire-related deaths in the first place. Under these circumstances, a decline in smoking wouldn’t be expected to result in a corresponding decline in home-fire deaths.

(C) picks up on the scope shift between the first and second sentences: There’s been a significant decline in cigarette smoking in general, but that doesn’t mean the decline includes the subset of people who smoke in bed. If (C) is true, we’d expect most of the bedsmokers to keep on smoking, which would certainly help resolve the apparent discrepancy.

(D) and (E) both help to resolve the paradox by offering other reasons why deaths from fires have increased lately. If kitchen fires or greater population densities are responsible for more home-fire deaths than before, the fact that no decline in fire deaths has accompanied the decline in cigarette smoking is far less surprising.

• Once again, the wrong choices offer a plethora of alternative explanations (see section A, Q. 20 for another situation loaded with alternative explanations). After all, what better way to resolve a paradox than to find a different, unmentioned, and plausible explanation for the surprising result? Understanding the concept of the alternative explanation can help you to answer Logical Flaw, Assumption, Paradox, and even Strengthen/Weaken questions. Make sure you keep this important concept in the forefront of your mind whenever working on LSAT Logical Reasoning.

• Keep your eyes peeled for scope shifts; sometimes they’re fairly subtle. Bed-smoking is not the same as cigarette smoking in general. “Home fires” from the first sentence is not the same as “people killed from home fires” in the second. Understanding these subtle distinctions when they exist in an argument will help you to assess that argument correctly and to answer any question the testmakers choose to throw at you.

Phoenix72 · Answer

IMO B,

A.Compared to other types of home fires, home fires caused by smoking in bed usually cause relatively little damage before they are extinguished.
Paradox resolved. The reason for fire could be kitchen fires etc and not due to smoking in bed.

B.Home fires caused by smoking in bed often break out after the home's occupants have fallen asleep.
 Tells nothing about the home fires or decline in smoking.

C. Smokers who smoke in bed tend to be heavy smokers who are less likely to quit smoking than are smokers who do not smoke in bed.
Paradox resolved. Heavy smokers would not quit smoking in bed and that could be the reason for no change in home fires.

D.An increasing number of people have been killed in home fires that started in the kitchen- Paradox resolved that the home fires could be due to kitchen fires.

E. Population densities have increased, with the result that one home fire can cause more deaths than in previous decades.- Paradox resolved. Home fires cause damage due to population densities.

IanStewart · Answer

We know there are fewer smokers now. But the number of people killed in fires has not changed. The argument is trying to suggest a chain of reasoning:

if there are fewer smokers ---( 1 )---> there should be fewer home fires --- (2) ---> so fewer people should die in home fires

but this has not turned out to be true. We can explain this by breaking one link in the chain above.

Answer A tells us that fires caused by smoking tend not to be serious. This attacks link (2) above - if smoking-caused fires are rarely serious, then they probably are not the types of fires that actually kill people. So even if the number of these fires has changed, that could easily mean there is little change in the number of deaths in home fires.

Answer C tells us that the number of smokers who actually cause fires has not changed much. So this attacks link (1) - we can have fewer smokers, but the same number of fires.

Answers D and E also clearly break link (2), since they both suggest why fire deaths may have increased.

Answer B is correct. If smoking-caused home fires break out while people are sleeping, you'd expect there to be serious consequences when such fires break out. With fewer smokers now, you'd thus expect fewer serious fires now, and thus fewer deaths in home fires. So B doesn't help to resolve the discrepancy at all.

shrgmat · Answer

really good question, especially elimination of A!!

unraveled · Answer

Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. Despite a significant decline in cigarette smoking in the last two decades, however, there has been no comparable decline in the number of people killed in home fires.

Each one of the following statements, if true, over the last two decades, helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy above EXCEPT:

(A) Compared to other types of home fires, home fires caused by smoking in bed usually cause relatively little damage before they are extinguished. - WRONG. So there must some other factors that caused fires and increased number of deaths.

(B) Home fires caused by smoking in bed often break out after the home’s occupants have fallen asleep. - CORRECT. Not sure how but POE is there to support. However, this does cause more confusion and that is what we are looking for instead of getting confused. The very moment of confusion should suggest that this is a possible answer.

(C) Smokers who smoke in bed tend to be heavy smokers who are less likely to quit smoking than are smokers who do not smoke in bed. - WRONG. Sleek and difficult to relate how this does resolve the discrepancy. The comparison shifts focus which makes things worst as it seems this is not resolving but at core it turns out to be.

(D) An increasing number of people have been killed in home fires that started in the kitchen. - WRONG. Gives another reason behind increased number of deaths.

(E) Population  densities have increased , with the result that one home fire can  cause more deaths  than in previous decades. - WRONG. Easiest to eliminate.

Answer B.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. Despite a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Smoking in bed has long been the main cause of home fires. Despite a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards