Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
12 Feb 2020, 01:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
70% (01:48) correct
30%
(02:18)
wrong
based on 273
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, however, it is not necessary to deny this fact in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers. After all, excessive consumption of candy undeniably leads to such health problems as tooth decay, but no one seriously believes that candy eaters who get cavities should be able to sue candy manufacturers.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and the health problems suffered by smokers
(B) depends on the obviously false assumption that everyone who gets cavities does so only as a result of eating too much candy
(C) leaves undefined such critical qualifying terms as “excessive” and “long-term”
(D) attributes certain beliefs to “many people” without identifying the people who allegedly hold those beliefs
(E) fails to address the striking differences in the nature of the threat to health posed by tooth decay on the one hand and cancer and lung disease on the other
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and the health problems suffered by smokers
(B) depends on the obviously false assumption that everyone who gets cavities does so only as a result of eating too much candy
(C) leaves undefined such critical qualifying terms as “excessive” and “long-term”
(D) attributes certain beliefs to “many people” without identifying the people who allegedly hold those beliefs
(E) fails to address the striking differences in the nature of the threat to health posed by tooth decay on the one hand and cancer and lung disease on the other
17 Feb 2020, 19:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
I was between A and E, and ended up selecting E.A
A - didn't select because it doesn't really matter if candy-toothdecay has MORE documentation. There is already an established causal link, therefore the fact can be accepted.
B - the conclusion doesn't state that all tooth decay is attributed to candy, so this rubuttal is a miss.
C - The length of time doesn't really matter. There is a casual link between the two things in question. It's arguing semantics when the semantics don't change the base claim or conclusion.
D - Doesn't matter how many people believe it. Its a moot point.
E - Directly attacks the comparison argument. Basically its says the conclusion is not a good argument because you're comparing apples to oranges.
A - didn't select because it doesn't really matter if candy-toothdecay has MORE documentation. There is already an established causal link, therefore the fact can be accepted.
B - the conclusion doesn't state that all tooth decay is attributed to candy, so this rubuttal is a miss.
C - The length of time doesn't really matter. There is a casual link between the two things in question. It's arguing semantics when the semantics don't change the base claim or conclusion.
D - Doesn't matter how many people believe it. Its a moot point.
E - Directly attacks the comparison argument. Basically its says the conclusion is not a good argument because you're comparing apples to oranges.
17 Feb 2020, 23:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
fireflyejd1
Hi
The following is the argument made in the passage:
i) We are able to accept the scientifically established fact that excessive consumption of candy can lead to tooth decay.
ii) Despite (i), we are of the view that candy eaters who get cavities should not be able to sue candy manufacturers.
iii) (i) and (ii) taken together mean that people who get cancer and lung diseases due to smoking should not be holding tobacco companies responsible, either morally or legally.
The question draws a conclusion about the responsibility of tobacco companies based on premises about the responsibility of candy manufacturers. We are asked to find a criticism for the argument. Therefore, we are looking for some option that brings out a way in which candy manufacturers are different from tobacco companies.
Option (C) does not bring out any such difference. It makes a generic point of lack of definitions, which is equally applicable to candy manufacturers and tobacco companies. Therefore, if we can accept the conclusion regarding candy companies' lack of responsibility basis such non-specific definition, we should also be able to accept an argument about tobacco companies' responsibility basis the same definitions. It does not weaken the conclusion.
Hope this helps.
