It is currently 16 Oct 2017, 21:13

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 326

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 01:05
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other peopleâ€™s tobacco smoke increases the incidence of heart disease or lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers, legislation banning smoking in workplaces cannot be justified on health grounds.

Of the following, which is the best criticism of the argument reported above?

(A) It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking.
(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.
(C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease.
(D) It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.
(E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 326

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

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 01:58

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

VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1116

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 1

Location: India

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 02:00
Is it C ?
_________________

Trying hard to conquer Quant.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 713

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

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 03:36
D for me on this one
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

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

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 56

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

Location: Moscow, Russia

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 03:59
I'll go for B:

A - irrelevant, the argument discusses the smoking effects and ban.
B - right. The statistics the tabacco lobby cites only refers to healthy nonsmokers. Very few people are healthy.
C - irrelevant, addresses only the heart disease but not lung cancer, and if it were relevant it would provide support for the lobbyists, notr criticicize them: "yeah guys what don't you eat healthy and exercise more instead of prohibiting peiple from smoking"
D - so what if they become concerned ? anyway they may or may not- that's a weak argument
E - it doesn't matter if they are healthier in general because the ground for the ban are specific diseases and it's the evidence against those diseases that the lobbyists cite
_________________

________________________________
"Amicus Plato, sed magic amica veritas"

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 439

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 04:50
(B) looks fine.
_________________

http://mba2010dreams.blogspot.com

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5208

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 05:54
Yurik79 wrote:
D for me on this one

I agree with Yurik here. These people may not take notice in their health until they suffer the consequences of second hand smoke.

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 702

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

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 06:52
Caught Between B and D.

D is the better choice than B.

All other options are out of scope.

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

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 07:04
(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.

The lobbyists cite "affect on healthy ..." ignoring unhealthy nonsmokers who may be affected too.

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 524

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 07:13
straight one B...

argument only takes care of healthy non-smokers. that's the issue.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 791

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 07:22
Definitely b/w B and D.

Should be a straight B - I don't think a legislation can be raised just because people start becoming concerned; there must be some solid health ground.
_________________

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Is the answer A, B, C, D or E?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 233

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 17:08
B. What's d OA?

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2893

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2006, 23:37
Between B and D, I go with D.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 322 [0], given: 0

23 Aug 2006, 23:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by