An international study recently examined the effects of second hand

Question

An international study recently examined the effects of second hand smoke on health. surprisingly, although the dosages of harmful chemicals form second hand smoke are so small that their effect should be negligible, the study found that nonsmoking spouses of smokers displayed an incidence of heart disease that was significantly greater than that of nonsmokers who were not as regularly exposed to second hand smoke.

Each of the following if true could contribute to an explanation of the unexpectedly high incidence of heart disease in smoker's spouses EXCEPT:

A. A disproportionately high number of people married to smokers are among the older segment of the married population, a group that inherently has a higher than average risk of heart disease

B. on average, more alcohol and coffee both of which have been linked to heart disease, are consumed in the homes of smokers than in the homes of nonsmokers.

C. A disproportionately high number of smokers are married to other smokers and the risk of heart disease increases in proportion to the number of smokers living in a household.

D. Smokers generally tend to live in higher stress environments than do non smokers and stress is a factor associated with above average incidence of heart disease.

E.A disproportionately high number of smokers live in areas with a high level of industrial pollutants, which have been shown to be a factor in increased risk of heart disease

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Sentence Correction Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Integrated Reasoning Butler

bagarwal11 · Answer

IMO C as it speak about spouses that smoke where as the question talks about impact on mon smoking spouses.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

So, here is how I would explain the logic behind this "EXCEPT" question.

First, let's look at the mystery (the paradox) we're trying to solve.

The study says the actual chemicals in second-hand smoke are too weak to hurt anyone. Yet, the non-smoking spouses of smokers are still getting heart disease at high rates.

If the smoke isn't the killer, there must be something else going on. We are looking for a  "Third Variable" —something else about the  lifestyle  or  environment  of being married to a smoker that causes heart disease.

Since this is an  EXCEPT  question, four of the answers will give us a valid excuse (a third variable), and one will be completely useless.

Here is how I broke down the options:

Check (A) Age:  If people married to smokers happen to be older, and older people naturally get heart disease, that explains the sickness without blaming the smoke. This works. 
  Check (B) Diet:  If "smoker households" drink way more coffee and alcohol, the non-smoking spouse is probably drinking that stuff too. If those drinks cause heart disease, we found our culprit. This works. 
  Check (D) Stress:  If smokers tend to live in high-stress environments, their spouses are stuck in that stress too. Stress hurts the heart. This works. 
  Check (E) Pollution:  If smokers tend to live in polluted industrial areas, their spouses are breathing that factory air too. That definitely explains the heart disease. This works.  
 Now, look at (C).  This option talks about "smokers married to other smokers." 
But wait—the study is specifically about  nonsmoking  spouses.

If two smokers are married to each other, neither of them is in the group we are analyzing! 
This fact tells us absolutely nothing about why the  nonsmokers  are getting sick. It’s totally irrelevant to the people in the study.

That’s why  (C)  is the correct answer—it’s the only one that fails to explain the paradox.

aditya1818 · Answer

A. A disproportionately high number of people married to smokers are among the older segment of the married population, a group that inherently has a higher than average risk of heart disease-  Incorrect: That group represents more population and are already having heart diseases and thus explains the paradox.
 
B. on average, more alcohol and coffee both of which have been linked to heart disease, are consumed in the homes of smokers than in the homes of nonsmokers.- Incorrect: This is easy to comprehend and reason out

C. A disproportionately high number of smokers are married to other smokers and the risk of heart disease increases in proportion to the number of smokers living in a household.- Correct: If the smokers are married in turn to smoker spouses and both being a smokers explains the cause of their heart diseases then how are they reasoning out anything about non-smoking spouses, nothing. Clearly doesn't resolve the paradox
 
D. Smokers generally tend to live in higher stress environments than do non smokers and stress is a factor associated with above average incidence of heart disease.- Incorrect. Smokers and their spouses live in same house and so the same stress are experienced to them thus increasing the heart diseases. Explains the paradox

E.A disproportionately high number of smokers live in areas with a high level of industrial pollutants, which have been shown to be a factor in increased risk of heart disease-  Incorrect: This again explains the paradox.

Alick1 · Answer

Answer is C.
Many smokers are married to other smokers; risk rises with number of smokers in household
But the study is about nonsmoking spouses of smokers.
This tells us about smoker–smoker couples, not about nonsmoking spouses.

Dereno · Answer

The question is about the international study report which examined the effects of second hand smoke on health. The dosages of chemicals from the second hand smoke is very small, can be taken as negligible. The study also showed, the non smoker spouses of a smoker, who are exposed to second hand smoking, even though the chemicals from the second hand smoke is negligible has showed greater incidence of heart diseases than non smoker who is exposed regularly to second hand smoke.

Both are non smoker, one who is not exposed regularly to second hand smoke and the other who is exposed regularly to second hand smoke. But, the group which is not exposed regularly has a greater incidence of heart disease.

We need to find a reason, why the incidences of heart disease is greater for that group, if second hand smoke hasn’t caused the incidence, then what has caused the increase of incidence. But choose an option which doesn’t support the above mentioned case.

A. A disproportionately high number of people married to smokers are among the older segment of the married population, a group that inherently has a higher than average risk of heart disease

The higher number of people married to smoker are exposed to second hand smoke, and the wording which describes they are old denotes, the duration of exposure might have been longer, which could have been a factor for the increased heart disease. Hence, supporting the cause - wrong answer.

B. on average, more alcohol and coffee both of which have been linked to heart disease, are consumed in the homes of smokers than in the homes of nonsmokers.

The home of smokers have found to have an increased consumption of alcohol and coffee, which are the catalyst for heart disease. The non smokers on average consume lesser amount of these products comparatively. Hence, supporting the cause - wrong answer .

C. A disproportionately high number of smokers are married to other smokers and the risk of heart disease increases in proportion to the number of smokers living in a household.

The option speaks about both the partners who are smokers, but our comparison is between non smoker group. Hence, not supporting the cause - correct answer.

D. Smokers generally tend to live in higher stress environments than do non smokers and stress is a factor associated with above average incidence of heart disease.

The aspect of smokers living in higher stressed environment, when the non smoker spouse lives in such conditions, then there is a greater chance that the non smoker might suffer from heart disease. Stress induced heart disease can be a major contributing factor. Hence, supporting the cause - wrong answer.

E.A disproportionately high number of smokers live in areas with a high level of industrial pollutants, which have been shown to be a factor in increased risk of heart disease.

The huge number of smokers living in areas of higher levels of industrial pollutants have been exposed to both carcinogenic smoke and second hand smoke. Thus, carcinogenic exposure might have induced the risk of heart disease compared to second hand smoke. Thus, supporting the cause - wrong answer.

Option C

BhardwajS · Answer

Explanation was really good, helped me to understand the question and reasoning behind it

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Glad it helped you and you got the clarity.

laborumplaceat · Answer

C talks about smokers being married to other smokers - but we need to resolve the paradox related to the smoker's spouses who are non-smokers. C is correct.

celialem · Answer

Answer C is the only one that discusses the effect on smoker couples (both of them smoking), when the paradox concerns the effect on the non-smoking spouse. The other answer choices all provide an alternative explanation as to the heart disease issue.

Maitreyeejoshi · Answer

I agree, The other answer choices does all provide an alternative explanation as to the heart disease issue.

culparecusandae · Answer

my mind hung for 20 minutes after watching option then came into my senses and got it right though.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Perusing the list of distinguishing features, you're likely to ask "what's not in this one?"—and the answer is "not much." This one nearly has it all, and we can take the features in order to describe what's going on. First of all, we're dealing with another study, and you should be fairly familiar by now with the kinds of mishaps, misconceptions, and downright mistakes that can arise when researchers get their hands on things. The study involves the nonsmoking spouses of smokers; that is, people who are presumably in contact with a decent amount of second-hand smoke. While the author contends that second-hand smoke shouldn't really have any effect, the study found that the incidence of heart disease in nonsmokers married to smokers is actually much higher than that of nonsmokers not exposed to secondhand smoke. So while there shouldn't be any causal mechanism at work here, the author implies that the study's finding suggests that there is. Now, we're asked to evaluate possible explanations of the unexpectedly high incidence of heart disease in smokers' nonsmoking spouses, and to choose the one that wouldn't contribute to an explanation. So there are the odd-man-out and alternative explanation features—four of the choices will provide plausible alternative explanations for the surprising results, while the right answer will not. And let's jump right to our odd-man-out, since it relates to the final feature mentioned above—scope shift. As difficult as this question may be for a number of reasons, the right answer is actually quite simple if you noticed the shift that takes place between the scope of the study and the scope of choice (C): The study focuses entirely on nonsmokers married to smokers. Cases in which smokers are married to other smokers fall outside of this scope, so (C) has no power to clear up the mystery at hand.

As for the wrong choices—that is, the valid explanations—they all hinge on the causation issue; or, more specifically, breaking down the notion of causality in order to show that the study's finding is not so surprising after all. Remember, the author is surprised at the finding because supposedly, second-hand smoke shouldn't cause a higher incidence of heart disease. Each wrong choice lessens the surprise by suggesting that second-hand smoke is in fact not to blame here, but that some other factor correlated with smoking is actually responsible for the higher incidence of spousal heart disease.

An 800 test taker recognizes the difference between causation and correlation, and is intimately familiar with the ways in which the GMAT tests this distinction.

(A) If the spouses of smokers tend to be older, and older people are more prone to heart disease, this helps explain the findings in a way that would satisfy the author—a way that's consistent with her belief that second-hand smoke, by itself, shouldn't cause the increased incidence of heart disease noted in the study.

(B) Same thing: If smoking homes are generally homes with increased alcohol and coffee intake, and these things are associated with heart disease, then we'd be less surprised by the findings in light of the fact that the effects of second-hand smoke should be negligible.

(D) and (E) Same thing: If smoking is correlated with higher stress and higher pollution levels, both of which are related to heart disease, the mystery would be lessened.

An international study recently examined the effects of second hand

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

An international study recently examined the effects of second hand

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