The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 19 Feb 2017, 14:23

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 267
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2007, 02:02
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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.
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Where you mind is
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2007, 04:01
Going for B.

Stats in the argument only cover healthy persons --> Using a sample to justify for the entire population. Appears to be a sampling argument to me. So, need to attack the stats.

(A), (C) and (E) Not relevant

(D) Going a bit too far from argument. No relation between "becoming more concerned" and the stats quoted
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2007, 04:31
AK47 wrote:
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.

This is my answer. In the argument, the author comments just about "healthy nonsmokers". In unhealthy nonsmokers, the possible effects can be more.

(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.
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2007, 04:35
B is the only possible
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 186 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2007, 14:31
ill go with B , question mentions healthy non-smokers, however, non healthy non-smokers need to be singled out
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

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

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2007, 19:29
Has to be B.
The author states a generalized conclusion (banning smoking in workplaces) using a premise that is too narrow in scope (healthy (not all) nonsmokers)
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 149 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2007, 22:22
B !
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 267
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2007, 20:45
oa is b
01 Feb 2007, 20:45
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Industrialists argue that because there is no evidence that 4 14 Aug 2012, 01:30
2 The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 8 18 Feb 2011, 05:54
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 6 11 Sep 2008, 12:01
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 4 12 Aug 2008, 06:56
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 1 01 Jul 2007, 17:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by