In the last decade, per capita consumption of cigarettes

Question

In the last decade, per capita consumption of cigarettes decreased substantially in Barritonia. Over the same time period, the government of Barritonia started a campaign that widely publicized the long-term adverse effects of cigarette smoking. Therefore, the decline in cigarette smoking in Barritonia is attributable to the government's anti-smoking campaign.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The government used television, radio, and social media in its anti-smoking campaign.
(B) During the time period, there was not an increase in the price per pack of cigarettes.
(C) Before the government's campaign, cigarette companies were mandated to alert consumers about the adverse effects of cigarettes.
(D) On average, the citizens of Barritonia smoke 40% fewer cigarettes than they did 10 years ago.
(E) It is commonly acknowledged that quitting smoking produces moderate side effects, such as headaches, lethargy, dizziness, and increased appetite.

AlfredNguyen · Answer

IMO b is correct.
B eliminate a possible cause of the decline in cigarette smoking. Hence strengthen the reasoning in the argument.

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Mankodim · Answer

I chose B as the best out of the lot. Can option B really strengthen the stem? We are not quite aware if the people of Barritonia are spend thrifts, or if cigarettes are a giffen good in the country.

Posted from my mobile device

JatinBhandari1 · Answer

As it can be observed that the argument shows a causal pattern.

Let’s understand the causal pattern

Premise – A and B are correlated.

The conclusion is that A caused B

Assumptions - 1. There is no other cause present.

2. it’s not a coincidence.

Weakening – Point out other causes.

Give a counterexample where the cause is present but the effect doesn’t follow.

Suggest that it’s a coincidence.

Strengthening – 1. Rule out other possible causes.

2. Show that it is not a coincidence.

Now, as per the discussion, the right way to strengthen the argument will be to suggest that the decline in the smoking happened ONLY due to the anti-smoking drive launched by the government.

Now look at the options

A- How the government did campaigning is not in the scope of the argument.

B- Correct as this answer choice rules out other possible causes.

C- We are not interested as to what happened before the campaign

D- Out of scope

E- Out of scope
All the best!! Keep practicing.
Consistency is the key.
PythaGURUS Faculty Team

Bispang · Answer

Can anyone please elaborate this solution. How can 'not an increase in the price per cigarettes' can strengthen the 'decline in smoking' ?

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

This argument is what I call a 'guessed cause' argument, which is one of the two most common kinds of arguments in GMAT critical reasoning (the other is a 'prediction/plan' argument).

In a "Guessed Cause," we're noticing some *outcome* and concluding *what must have caused it.* In this story, there's been a huge decline in smoking--we're concluding it's due to the anti-smoking campaign.

There are a few ways to strengthen an argument like this:

1).   To show that other plausible causes did not occur

2).   to demonstrate that 'more cause' leads to 'more effect' or 'less cause' leads to 'less effect.' (so in this case, if places where there was more of this anti-smoking messaging saw more of a decrease in smoking, that would strengthen the argument that the messaging was the cause)

So, it helps to keep an open mind about what other possible causes would decrease smoking. One very likely cause would be that cigarettes got more expensive! GMAT CR does rely on basic 'supply/demand' understanding: raise price, lower demand; lower price, increase demand, all else equal.

So an answer that says there was NOT a price increase eliminates that plausible explanation for the decrease in smoking, so it's more likely that the anti-smoking campaign *was* the cause.

You might be thinking "But aren't there still other possible causes?!?" Indeed there are. To strengthen the argument further we could eliminate *those* causes as well. But keep in mind that to *strengthen* an argument does not require *guaranteeing* an argument! We aren't making it *certain* that the anti-smoking campaign caused the decrease, we're just trying to make it *more likely* that it was the cause.

toshak · Answer

why?? the freak some one would choose B, clearly says "there was not an increase in the price of pack of cigarettees". or am i such a dumb man? pleasee explain

guddo · Answer

In the last decade, per capita consumption of cigarettes decreased substantially in Barritonia. Over the same time period, the government of Barritonia started a campaign that widely publicized the long-term adverse effects of cigarette smoking. Therefore, the decline in cigarette smoking in Barritonia is attributable to the government's anti-smoking campaign.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Smoking went down in Barritonia during the same period the government ran an anti smoking campaign, so the argument concludes the campaign caused the decline.

(A) The government used television, radio, and social media in its anti-smoking campaign.

This shows the campaign used major channels, but it does not show it actually changed behavior. It is supportive, but not strong.

(B) During the time period, there was not an increase in the price per pack of cigarettes.

This removes a major alternative cause. Higher prices often reduce smoking, so if price did not go up, the decline is less likely to be explained by price and more likely to be explained by the campaign.  This most strengthens the causal claim.

(C) Before the government's campaign, cigarette companies were mandated to alert consumers about the adverse effects of cigarettes.

This weakens the argument, because it suggests people were already being told about harms, so the government campaign may not explain the later decline.

(D) On average, the citizens of Barritonia smoke 40% fewer cigarettes than they did 10 years ago.

This just restates the decline with a number. It does not link the decline to the campaign.

(E) It is commonly acknowledged that quitting smoking produces moderate side effects, such as headaches, lethargy, dizziness, and increased appetite.

Irrelevant to whether the campaign caused the decline.

Answer: (B)

In the last decade, per capita consumption of cigarettes

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

In the last decade, per capita consumption of cigarettes

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