Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of peop

Question

Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of people smoking, and especially in the number of first-time smokers in those countries that have imposed stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising. This provides substantial grounds for disputing tobacco companies' claims that advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the columnist's reasoning?

(A) People who smoke are unlikely to quit merely because they are no longer exposed to tobacco advertising.
(B) Broadcast media tend to have stricter restrictions on tobacco advertising than do print media.
(C) Restrictions on tobacco advertising are imposed only in countries where a negative attitude toward tobacco use is already widespread and increasing.
(D) Most people who begin smoking during adolescence continue to smoke throughout their lives.
(E) People who are largely unaffected by tobacco advertising tend to be unaffected by other kinds of advertising as well.

Source: LSAT

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Akela , I'm happy to respond.

The LSAT Logical Reasoning questions provide excellent practice for the GMAT Critical Reasoning questions--if anything, the LSAT LR questions tend to run a notch or two harder than the GMAT CR questions. This is a superb argument, great practice for the GMAT! The argument argues that anti-tobacco ads is the cause of a drop in the number of new smokers. We want to undermine this causal argument. (A) People who smoke are unlikely to quit merely because they are no longer exposed to tobacco advertising. This is about people who already were smoking before the ads. These people are irrelevant to the argument. This is incorrect. (B) Broadcast media tend to have stricter restrictions on tobacco advertising than do print media. True, but irrelevant to the argument. The argument didn't touch on this distinction, nor is it clear how it would weaken the argument. This is incorrect. (C) Restrictions on tobacco advertising are imposed only in countries where a negative attitude toward tobacco use is already widespread and increasing. Interesting. This suggests that the the widespread " negative attitude toward tobacco " might have a bigger effect in persuading folks not to begin smoking than do the ads. This is an interesting way to attach a causal argument--if the argument is that " A alone causes B ," then " C causes B " is a big objection. This is a promising choice. (D) Most people who begin smoking during adolescence continue to smoke throughout their lives. True, but the argument is concerns only with the number of first-time smokers, not how many continue once they start. This is incorrect. (E) People who are largely unaffected by tobacco advertising tend to be unaffected by other kinds of advertising as well. We don't know how many people this is. We don't know whether this is a large enough segment of the population to have an effect on the argument. Because the impact is unclear, this is incorrect. The clear answer is (C) . Here's a high quality and challenging GMAT CR practice question: Simian Virus Does all this make sense? Mike

zanaik89 · Answer

Hi Mike,

could u pls explain what it means by advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

Im a bit confused..what are we undermining?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear zanaik89 , I'm happy to respond.

My friend, before you can take on GMAT CR, it's important to have a very good understanding of English. The best way for a non-native speaker to develop this is through a habit of reading. See: How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score As for this sentence, I'll explain a little. Left to their own devices, humans gravitate toward addictive substances. For example, there is a natural " tendency to smoke "--that is, a tendency of young people to be curious about this cool and supposedly dangerous activity, and once they try, they're hooked for life. Because smoking is so pernicious, there's a concern among health professionals about how to combat or reduce this tendency. One tactics is advertising, anti-smoking advertising. The theory behind this is that young people will see the ads, be exposed to the known risks, and thus be less likely to enter the addictive cycle. That's the theory? Is this theory true? This GMAT CR questions concerns the answer to that question. Of course, the tobacco industry, the people who make money by getting young people addicted to something that will kill them, has an interest in denying the effects of any anti-smoking tactics: even if the statistical evidence suggests that a particular tactic works, the tobacco industry will claim that it doesn't work: they hope that people will stop using that tactic, which could threaten the economic interests of the tobacco industry. In short, the tobacco industry says that anti-smoking advertising doesn't work. In other words, anti-smoking advertising doesn't have the effect of causing people not to smoke. In other words, anti-smoking advertising doesn't have the effect of causing a drop in the tendency to smoke. A " causal impact " is simply the impact made by a cause of some kind. The word " significant " is loaded: this word suggests mathematical data, statistical evidence, backing up a claim. See: Statistical Significance on the GMAT Thus, another way to say that same ideas is that the the tobacco industry claims that " advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke ." That's what the tobacco industry says. The " Columnist " disagrees with the tobacco industry and argues that, in fact, advertising against tobacco is very effective. Columnist argues that evidence from several countries where advertising has lead directly to a cause a drop in the tendency to smoke. The " Columnist " cites this evidence. Then, the argument's conclusion is: " This provides substantial grounds for disputing tobacco companies' claims that advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke ." Does this make sense? Mike

GmatPrime · Answer

Premise:  Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of people smoking, and especially in the number of first-time smokers in those countries that have imposed stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising .

Conclusion:  This provides substantial grounds for disputing tobacco companies' claims that advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the columnist's reasoning?

(A) People who smoke are unlikely to quit merely because they are no longer exposed to tobacco advertising. 
- May be true but not related to the conclusion. This is a statement about people who continue to smoke whereas the columnist is (mostly) talking about people taking up smoking, as per his premise. Honestly, I had this option in the differential but let's see if there's a better option along the way.

(B) Broadcast media tend to have stricter restrictions on tobacco advertising than do print media. 
Could be true but irrelevant to the conclusion.

(C) Restrictions on tobacco advertising are imposed only in countries where a negative attitude toward tobacco use is already widespread and increasing. 
This seems like a plausible undermining statement to the conclusion. 
As per the columnist, advertising does have significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke. 
But as per this statement (option c), it could merely be a correlation and not causation. That is, they both can co-exist but it does not necessarily mean that advertising alone causes significant impact on tendency to smoke. If there's an alternative reason, like an already existing negative attitude toward tobacco use in countries with restrictions on advertising, then the columnist's argument is substantially weakened. 
I would pick option c as the answer.

(D) Most people who begin smoking during adolescence continue to smoke throughout their lives. 
- Again, may be true but irrelevant to the conclusion.

(E) People who are largely unaffected by tobacco advertising tend to be unaffected by other kinds of advertising as well. 
- Again, may be true but irrelevant to the conclusion.

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of people smoking, and especially in the number of first-time smokers in those countries that have imposed stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising. This provides substantial grounds for disputing tobacco companies' claims that advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

Conclusion: restriction on ads helps in reducing the nos. of people smoking.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the columnist's reasoning?

(A) People who smoke are unlikely to quit merely because they are no longer exposed to tobacco advertising. -> Irrelevant, as it is not discussed what else stopped them smoking.
(B) Broadcast media tend to have stricter restrictions on tobacco advertising than do print media. -> Incorrect, As we need to weaken the concept as ads reduced smoking.
(C) Restrictions on tobacco advertising are imposed only in countries where a negative attitude toward tobacco use is already widespread and increasing. -> So, we have another solver, "a negative attitude". It makes sense. Let's keep it.
(D) Most people who begin smoking during adolescence continue to smoke throughout their lives. -> Irrelevant.
(E) People who are largely unaffected by tobacco advertising tend to be unaffected by other kinds of advertising as well. -> Is it true for the whole country, so we don't know. Incorrect.

So, I think C.

Rhopring · Answer

(A) People who smoke are unlikely to quit merely because they are no longer exposed to tobacco advertising. 
This is true, but it does not matter to those who take their first cigarette puffs and therefore does not apply to the claim above.
(B) Broadcast media tend to have stricter restrictions on tobacco advertising than do print media. - This point does not contradict the columnist at all.
(D) Most people who begin smoking during adolescence continue to smoke throughout their lives. - This is true, but it has nothing to do with advertising issues, and therefore is not a subject matter for discussion.
(E) People who are largely unaffected by tobacco advertising tend to be unaffected by other kinds of advertising as well. - It is generally controversial since it does not dispute the assertion by the columnist about tobacco advertising’s effect on smoking inclination; rather it addresses people’s general responsiveness towards adverts.
So I began to consider other options. In addition,  https://chat.openai.com/g/g-a0ULgFcuZ-essay-helper  from whom I asked for help, says that option C seems more suitable, because it directly indicates that restrictions on tobacco advertising are being introduced in countries with an already negative attitude towards smoking. That is, public opinion, not advertising, plays a key role.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of peop

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

Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of peop

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