Taxes on sales of cigarettes are typically imposed not only to

Question

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

Taxes on sales of cigarettes are typically imposed not only to generate revenue but also to cause improvement in public health by discouraging people from smoking. In many cases, however, the imposition of cigarette taxes results in outcomes opposite to what their creators anticipated because __________.

(A) many people are so addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes that they are not deterred from smoking by taxes

(B) unfiltered cigarettes, which are more harmful than other cigarettes, are taxed at rates no higher than those at which other cigarettes are taxed

(C) it is common for people to choose to eat relatively high quality food only if they can afford to do so after covering other expenses

(D) even light smoking results in significant damage to the body and increased risk of experiencing illnesses

(E) lower-income people who smoke often respond by applying for government benefits that offset the cost of the taxes

gmatophobia · Answer

This is a "resolve the paradox" type question. The paradox is that cigarette taxes are meant to improve public health by discouraging smoking but in many cases, the result is the opposite. That is, public health doesn’t improve (and may even worsen).

(A) many people are so addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes that they are not deterred from smoking by taxes

This points out that taxes may not be effective deterrents. But it doesn’t explain why public health worsens. Also, it refers only to “many” people, not all. A mild weakener at best. Worth considering initially, but not strong enough. I will keep it in the initial pass, but look out for better options.

(B) unfiltered cigarettes, which are more harmful than other cigarettes, are taxed at rates no higher than those at which other cigarettes are taxed 
 
This adds a new fact but doesn’t explain a change in behavior or health outcomes. We can’t assume people switch to unfiltered cigarettes. Doesn’t resolve the paradox.

We can eliminate B.

(C) it is common for people to choose to eat relatively high quality food only if they can afford to do so after covering other expenses 
 
  The option introduces a key idea: taxes raise costs of cigarettes, so smokers may cut spending on healthier food. The act could lead to worse health, despite reduced smoking. The information provides a strong connection to the paradox. We can keep this option.

(D) even light smoking results in significant damage to the body and increased risk of experiencing illnesses

The information is rrelevant. It doesn’t explain why taxes backfire or lead to worse outcomes. Eliminate D.
 
 (E) lower-income people who smoke often respond by applying for government benefits that offset the cost of the taxes

This explains how people cope with the financial burden, but doesn’t connect to worsening health. Doesn’t resolve the paradox. Eliminate E.

Option C

MartyMurray · Answer

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

Taxes on sales of cigarettes are typically imposed not only to generate revenue but also to cause improvement in public health by discouraging people from smoking. In many cases, however, the imposition of cigarette taxes results in outcomes opposite to what their creators anticipated because __________.

Reading the passage, we see that what precedes the blank is a statement of fact, "In many cases, however, the imposition of cigarette taxes results in outcomes opposite to what their creators anticipated," followed by "because."

In this type of context, the word "because" signals that the answer choice that fills the blank must explain WHY the fact stated is true.

So, in this case, the correct answer must explain why "the imposition of cigarette taxes results in outcomes OPPOSITE TO what their creators anticipated."

Accordingly, to get this question correct, we must identify what the creators of the taxes would have anticipated. Reviewing the passage, we see that it says that cigarette taxes are imposed for two purposes: "to generate revenue" and "to cause improvement in public health."

So, the correct answer will explain why imposition of cigarette taxes results in outcomes that are the opposite of generating revenue, improvement in public health, or both.

In other words, the correct answer will explain why imposition of cigarette taxes causes a reduction in revenue, worse health, or both.

(A) many people are so addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes that they are not deterred from smoking by taxes

If this choice is true, then many people will keep smoking as much as they have been and pay cigarette taxes.

People paying cigarette taxes will not cause a decline in revenue, and people smoking as much as they have been will not make their health any worse.

So, this choice does not explain why imposition of cigarette taxes results in outcomes opposite to those anticipated.

Eliminate.

(B) unfiltered cigarettes, which are more harmful than other cigarettes, are taxed at rates no higher than those at which other cigarettes are taxed

Taxing unfiltered cigarettes at the same rates as other cigarettes would not cause a decrease in tax revenue or worse public health.

After all, there's no reason to believe that taxing all kinds of cigarettes at the same rates would cause people to switch to smoking unfiltered cigarettes.

So, this choice does not explain why imposition of cigarette taxes results in outcomes opposite to those anticipated.

Eliminate.

(C) it is common for people to choose to eat relatively high quality food only if they can afford to do so after covering other expenses

This choice is interesting.

After all, if people choose to eat relatively high quality food only if they can afford to do so after covering other expenses, then, if their other expenses, such as what they spend on smoking, increase, they may choose to eat lower quality food, a choice that could result in worse health.

In that case, by increasing the cost of smoking, the imposition of cigarette taxes could cause outcomes opposite to improvement in health.

Keep.

(D) even light smoking results in significant damage to the body and increased risk of experiencing illnesses

This choice indicates that people could still experience some negative effects of smoking even if cigarette taxes caused them to reduce how much they smoked.

At the same time, people continuing to experience some negative effects is not the "opposite" of "improvement in public health." In fact, it could represent somewhat of an improvement over the situation without cigarette taxes.

Eliminate.

(E) lower-income people who smoke often respond by applying for government benefits that offset the cost of the taxes

A key thing we need to notice is that this choice mentions "government benefits that offset the cost of the taxes."

People receiving benefits that "offset the cost of the taxes" would perhaps offset the increase in revenue associated with cigarette taxes by causing increases in government spending. At the same time, that outcome would represent basically no net change in government finances - more revenue coming in with basically the same amount of money going out.

No net change would not be an outcome "opposite to" increased revenue.

Also, even if some people respond this way, if others do not, the government should still experience an increase in net income.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   C

Matty101 · Answer

I've done a lot of things, and this is the most difficult critical reasoning question I've encountered.

licrolicro · Answer

Option C: "it is common for people to choose to eat relatively high quality food only if they can afford to do so after covering other expenses"

This is about food choices and affordability, which seems unrelated to cigarette taxes. Doesn't fit at all.

Option E: "lower-income people who smoke often respond by applying for government benefits that offset the cost of the taxes"

This suggests that smokers (especially lower-income) might not reduce smoking but instead seek benefits to cover the tax cost.

This could mean the tax doesn't discourage smoking and might strain government resources (opposite of the goals of revenue and health improvement).

This fits well because it explains how the tax could backfire: people don't stop smoking, and the government might end up paying more in benefits.

Why E is the Best Answer:

It directly explains how the tax could lead to outcomes opposite of what was intended (no reduction in smoking, potential increase in government costs).

The other options either don't explain the "opposite outcome" or are irrelevant.

Hrley · Answer

I was initially really attracted to E, but dissapointed in figuring out that the answer doesn't mean that public health would deteriotate, it could just mean that public health remains stagnant since the benefits gained are equal to the cost of those cigarettes.

I kept looking at the other answers, I kept thinking how could anyone of them be better besides E lol. And then, I reluctantly picked C.

I had some agreements with C when I first looked at it because I did think this means that in trying to improve the health of smokers, the tax would worsen their health by not allowing them to eat those high-quality foods. But then I thought: "If continuing smokers generally keep themselves from buying healthy food, and there'd be less smokers, then the proportion of those suffering from health issues would still decrease because now the new proportion of those people are smokers who are also forced to eat those sub-par foods, leaving the increasing remaining majority of the population that could either or both still afford those good meals and/or don't smoke." I also thought: "Well, high-quality foods doesn't imply that they have to be healthy, like potatoes grilled with duck fat...?" But then I finally picked C simply because I know for certain that A, B, and D cannot complete the argument and I also committed to just not pick E...

I don't know how I should have trusted C more in the first place...

Sonatomar · Answer

But how can we relate that high tax leads to high quality food.

MartyMurray · Answer

That's actually not the relationship we have to see.

The relationship we have to see is that, if, as (C) says, "it is common for people to choose to eat relatively high quality food only if they can afford to do so after covering other expenses," then if taxes increase their "other expenses," people will NOT choose to eat high quality food.

So, the relationship is that high tax leads to lower quality food.

Taxes on sales of cigarettes are typically imposed not only to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Taxes on sales of cigarettes are typically imposed not only to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards