It is currently 19 Sep 2017, 04:57

### 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
Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Posts: 140

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2008, 07:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 7 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other peoples 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.

Q. 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 [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 432

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2008, 08:24
balboa wrote:
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other peoples 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.

Q. 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.

A) -> Does not criticize
B) -> It does , keep it
C) -> Out of place
D) -> Hardly criticize
E) -> Does not criticize

IMO B)

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1870

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2008, 08:28

It's not the attack / criticism I first looked for, but upon a second read-through, it does weaken the argument somewhat, whereas the others don't weaken or are irrelevant entirely.

balboa wrote:
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other peoples 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.

Q. 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.

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 607 [0], given: 32

Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 86

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2008, 05:58
IMO B

A. It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking.-NOT RELATED

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.-STRENGTHENS

D. It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.-NOT RELATED

E. It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.-CANT SAY

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 66

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

Location: D.C.

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2008, 06:15
B for me... the lobbyist only considers healthy individuals, by introducing the issue of non-healthy workers it weakens the argument.

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

Re: CR1000: Q126   [#permalink] 13 Aug 2008, 06:15
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 A director of the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company argued that 6 11 May 2011, 02:15
statistics CR tb18 4 08 Jan 2008, 07:16
Critical Reasoning - Lobbyist 4 02 Aug 2010, 06:08
The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs 9 03 Aug 2011, 21:41
The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 6 12 Sep 2008, 06:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by