It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 15:12

### 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
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2008, 13:01
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 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 [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2008, 14:51
I'd go with B.

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 5

Director
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 540

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 92

WE 1: Investment Banking - 6yrs

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2008, 15:30
B for me

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 92

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 245

Kudos [?]: 268 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2008, 17:14
IMO B

Kudos [?]: 268 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1402

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2008, 19:25

It came down to B & D. I ruled out D because the conclusion is legislation banning smoking in workplaces cannot be justified on health grounds. Also the stem talks about healthy workers. It conveniently leaves out unhealthy workers.

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 1

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1374

Kudos [?]: 406 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2008, 01:18
rao_1857 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.-> IMO B the analysis neglects healthy non-smokers

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.

_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Kudos [?]: 406 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1534

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2008, 06:08
Another B.

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Smoker   [#permalink] 12 Sep 2008, 06:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by