The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence tha

THe premise only talks about healthy non-smokers and then generalises the argument. It completely ignores the effect on unhealthy non-smokers and B elegently exemplifies it.

Argument:
Main argument - banning smoking in workplace is not justified
Reason - No evidence that smoking causes lung cancer or heart disease in healthy smokers
Question type - identify the flaw

(A) It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking.
- The argument rather neglects effects of smoking other than lung cancer or heart disease
- Wrong

(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.
- The argument focuses only on sub-group of people other than non-smokers. May be, healthy non-smokers consitutute hardly 1% of the total number of non-smokers.
- Correct

(C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease.
- Irrelevant. Argument focuses on effects of smoking
-Wrong

(D) It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.
- Getting concerned is not equivalent to health getting affected by smoking. May be all these nonsmokers practice yoga hence, even if they get concerned their health is not affected.
- Wrong

(E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.
- Even if the non-smokers are healthier what matters is the effect of smoking on the health of non-smokers
-Wrong

Situation: There is no proven evidence, that for healthy nonsmokers, breathing other people's smoke is unhealthy. Therefore laws that ban smoking in workplaces can't be justified on grounds related to health.

Pre Thinking:
1. Has any research been attempted on this issue? Just because there are no statistics on the matter, doesn't mean that breathing in smoke is not unhealthy.
2. Is the purpose of this legislation only to protect "healthy non-smokers"?

Weaken


Out of Scope. We are only concerned with legislation banning smoking in workplaces.


The premise says there is no statistical evidence of damaging effects of healthy nonsmokers.

But what about unhealthy nonsmokers? The lobbyists failed to consider unhealthy nonsmokers in the workplace and how breathing in smoke may affect their health.

Hold


Out of Scope. We are only concerned with legislation banning smoking in workplaces.


Irrelevant. Whether or not nonsmokers become more concerned about their health does not weaken the claim in the premise.


Out of Scope. We are only concerned with legislation banning smoking in workplaces. Whether nonsmokers are healthier or less healthy than smokers is irrelevant.

The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other people’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.
Wrong. In the argument we are only concerned with the heart disease and lung cancer and not only lung cancer.

(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.
Correct. Why should smoking in a open space because it neglects the damagin effect on non-smokers who are not healthy.

(C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease.
Wrong. We are not concerned with diet, exercise or heredity.

(D) It does not consider the possibility that nonsmokers who breathe smoke-filled air at work may become more concerned about their health.
Wrong. They may become concerned about their health but why should it be banned? Is it harming them?

(E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.
Wrong. This is strengthening the conclusion.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja AjiteshArun

I am confused between b and e.

I mean why can’t e be the answer? If the non smokers, including both healthy and not healthy non smokers, are healthier than smokers, then banning smoking from the workplace can massively be justified. Where in the argument can we see this acknowledgment? I do understand that b is very specific as an option, but what exactly is wrong with e?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi goaltop30mba,

There are many issues with what the lobbyists say:
1. No statistical evidence: we could attack the studies looking at the issue (there could be flaws in the research)
2. Breathing other people’s tobacco smoke: maybe we shouldn't limit the discussion to just "breathing"
3. Heart disease or lung cancer: smoke may affect people in other ways
4. Healthy: the argument doesn't consider people who aren't healthy
5. Nonsmokers: the argument doesn't take the impact on smokers into account (beyond hinting at choice/free will)

Now, let's take a look at B first. Here's what option B leads to:
B1. "What smokers do doesn't seem to hurt healthy nonsmokers."
B2. "What about nonsmokers who aren't healthy?"

And this is what option E leads to:
E1. "What smokers do doesn't seem to hurt healthy nonsmokers."
E2. "But nonsmokers are healthier than smokers."

So: NS > S in terms of health, and breathing smoke doesn't increase "risk" in healthy NS. This doesn't give us any reason to say that the conclusion "legislation banning smoking in workplaces cannot be justified on health grounds" is not a good one.

Perhaps you were thinking ~"NS > S, so let's ban smoking". That's somewhat different from what the argument is saying. The argument says that ~smoking should not be banned in workplaces. Banning smoking in workplaces ~will not make smokers quit. That is, they ~will continue smoking (just not in workplaces), so the (positive) impact on their health is likely to be minimal. Your point would be stronger if we had information about the impact of the legislation mentioned in the argument on smokers, but E doesn't contain any such information. That is, E doesn't help prove that the health of smokers will improve if smoking is banned in workplaces.

Lobbyists : Because there is no statistical evidence that breathing other people’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.

The point being made by lobbyists is that since there is no statistical evidence of ill effect on healthy non smokers, don't ban workplace smoking.
Why is workplace smoking banned? Because non smokers get exposed to smoke too. So smokers step outside the office premises or in marked areas/rooms and smoke there. The lobbyist is arguing that since smoke doesn't impact healthy individuals as per stats available, ban should be lifted.

We need to weaken his argument.

(A) It ignores causes of lung cancer other than smoking.

Out of scope. We are only discussing whether workplace smoking ban should be lifted or not.

(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.

Correct. The stats only talk about no impact on healthy individuals. What about unhealthy non smokers? What if cigarette smoke is terrible for them and they get exposed to it without actually indulging in the activity themselves? Then the ban does make sense. So the lobbyist focusses only on healthy non smokers and fails to
evaluate the impact on unhealthy non smokers.


(C) It fails to mention the roles played by diet, exercise, and heredity in the development of heart disease.

Out of scope. We are discussing effect of smoking only.

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

What this concern may lead to, we do not know. They may start taking better care of their health or they may come under stress - we don't know.

(E) It does not acknowledge that nonsmokers, even those who breathe smoke-filled air at work, are in general healthier than smokers.
goaltop30mba
Just because smokers are ruining their health, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to ruin others even if it is to a smaller extent. Banning workplace smoking does not make smokers quit. They just smoke in restricted areas and outside office timings. So workplace smoking ban doesn't change the health of smokers anyway. To discuss whether workplace smoking should be allowed or not, we need to evaluate its impact on the health of non smokers only. The argument discusses its effect on healthy non smokers. We need to ensure that its impact on unhealthy non smokers is also taken into consideration (as done by option (B)).
Hence (E) is irrelevant.

Answer (B)

AjiteshArun EducationAisle ReedArnoldMPREP avigutman - While I agree (A), (C), (d) and (E) are wrong - I didnt think (B) was right either.

If you read the argument -- the argument is talking about 'healthy non smokers' [yellow highlight below]

Hence, why do we care about - NON-HEALTHY non-smokers ?

(B) refers to an entirely different group all-together to what the argument talked about

We should be finding a weakeness in the argument, relating to HEALTHY non-smokers

NON-HEALTHY non-smokers are a different group

Hence - i marked (B) wrong

Thoughts on where I may be going wrong ?

The conclusion is: legislation banning smoking in workplaces cannot be justified on health grounds.

B is basically saying that the data-point (healthy nonsmokers) is flawed because a holistic consideration (which should include un-healthy nonsmokers) was not taken into account, while arriving at the conclusion.

jabhatta2 The legislation's aim is to protect the health of non-smokers in workplaces, whether they're healthy or not.
I think your error was in narrowly focusing on the group that the premise discusses, while ignoring the larger group that the conclusion affects.
Ironically, that's the same error that the lobbyists made (although they likely made that error on purpose, to achieve their insidious goals).

Be careful about a few things, here. What the argument 'talks about' does not usually include *everything* that is relevant to the argument. Right answers on CR very often bring in material that the argument doesn't 'talk about.' IN FACT, as is the case here, it's very often what IS NOT talked about that is key to the question.

The conclusion says "we can't justifying banning smoking on HEALTH GROUNDS."

Forget everything else for a second--what is this conclusion saying? It's saying that the reason we can't justify a smoking ban is because, this person thinks, smoking doesn't affect 'health' in some way. WHOSE HEALTH? The conclusion doesn't specify. So, we must think about *everyone's* health.

What premise is given? That HEALTHY non-smokers don't see negative health effects breathing in other people's smoke. This DOES, as you notice, specify a group. But the argument shifts scope from Healthy Nonsmokers to the "health" of people in general. So what about the health of smokers? What about the health of non-healthy non-smokers? If smoking affects *their* health negatively, maybe that could justify a ban 'on health grounds.'

Often, what is 'talked about' in a CR argument has actually blinded the author of that argument in some way. Our job is to find the author's blind spots--which include, often, things the author did not talk about. This of course doesn't mean EVERYTHING not talked about is relevant... but some things that are relevant are not talked about!

The best criticism of the argument reported above is:

(B) It neglects the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy.

The argument presented by the lobbyists focuses on the lack of statistical evidence linking breathing other people's tobacco smoke to increased incidence of heart disease or lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. However, this argument ignores the detrimental effects that smoke-filled air can have on nonsmokers who are not healthy.

Even if there may not be a significant statistical increase in heart disease or lung cancer among healthy nonsmokers, it does not address the potential harm caused by secondhand smoke to individuals with pre-existing health conditions or compromised immune systems. These individuals may be more susceptible to respiratory issues, exacerbation of existing conditions, and other adverse health effects due to exposure to smoke-filled air.

Therefore, option (B) provides the best criticism by highlighting the omission of considering the damaging effects of smoke-filled air on nonsmokers who are not healthy, which is a valid concern when assessing the justification of legislation banning smoking in workplaces on health grounds.