Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 23:07 It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 23:07
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,686
Own Kudos:
15,313
 [7]
Given Kudos: 766
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,686
Kudos: 15,313
 [7]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Hatakekakashi
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Last visit: 22 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,228
Own Kudos:
483
 [2]
Given Kudos: 126
Location: United States (MO)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Products:
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Posts: 1,228
Kudos: 483
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
kntombat
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Feb 2020
Last visit: 19 Jan 2023
Posts: 862
Own Kudos:
530
 [1]
Given Kudos: 839
Location: India
WE:Other (Other)
Posts: 862
Kudos: 530
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Hatakekakashi
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Last visit: 22 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,228
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 126
Location: United States (MO)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Products:
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Posts: 1,228
Kudos: 483
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
kntombat

I am confused between D and E and as the timer had gone beyond 2 mins, I chose D.

yeah, i took way more than 2 mins as well

I was thinking that since the matter can only be challenged civilly it's not unlawful (E) makes sense but again it can't be challenged legally ( D) so it's lawful
User avatar
MBAB123
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 528
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 150
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 528
Kudos: 319
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hatakekakashi
kntombat

I am confused between D and E and as the timer had gone beyond 2 mins, I chose D.

yeah, i took way more than 2 mins as well

I was thinking that since the matter can only be challenged civilly it's not unlawful (E) makes sense but again it can't be challenged legally ( D) so it's lawful

Hatakekakashi and kntombat, I'm inclining towards C.

A and B are supporting the argument and are hence out.

D&E, IMO are not really doing anything to the argument. D & E are just talking about the proceedings (legal vs civil,etc). It's okay if I'm not allowed to present my argument in court, but does that really weaken/demerit my argument? Not really. It would have certainly been a huge dent if the smokers' lawyers planned on taking this argument to court.

C gives a picture that it is allowed to have discriminatory tax laws as per the city's constitution and hence weakens the argument.

I could be absolutely wrong here. Waiting for the OA!
User avatar
Hatakekakashi
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Last visit: 22 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,228
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 126
Location: United States (MO)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Products:
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Posts: 1,228
Kudos: 483
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Brian123
Hatakekakashi
kntombat

I am confused between D and E and as the timer had gone beyond 2 mins, I chose D.

yeah, i took way more than 2 mins as well

I was thinking that since the matter can only be challenged civilly it's not unlawful (E) makes sense but again it can't be challenged legally ( D) so it's lawful

Hatakekakashi and kntombat, I'm inclining towards C.

A and B are supporting the argument and are hence out.

D&E, IMO are not really doing anything to the argument. D & E are just talking about the proceedings (legal vs civil,etc). It's okay if I'm not allowed to present my argument in court, but does that really weaken/demerit my argument? Not really. It would have certainly been a huge dent if the smokers' lawyers planned on taking this argument to court.

C gives a picture that it is allowed to have discriminatory tax laws as per the city's constitution and hence weakens the argument.

I could be absolutely wrong here. Waiting for the OA!

Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution

That means that taxes are discriminatory and the smokers argument is that it is unfair to be discriminatory

so C actually strengthens the argument and not weaken we are asked to weaken

so the option should say that the new tax is not discriminatory
User avatar
Hatakekakashi
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Last visit: 22 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,228
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 126
Location: United States (MO)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Products:
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
Posts: 1,228
Kudos: 483
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Brian123
Hatakekakashi
kntombat

I am confused between D and E and as the timer had gone beyond 2 mins, I chose D.

yeah, i took way more than 2 mins as well

I was thinking that since the matter can only be challenged civilly it's not unlawful (E) makes sense but again it can't be challenged legally ( D) so it's lawful

Hatakekakashi and kntombat, I'm inclining towards C.

A and B are supporting the argument and are hence out.

D&E, IMO are not really doing anything to the argument. D & E are just talking about the proceedings (legal vs civil,etc). It's okay if I'm not allowed to present my argument in court, but does that really weaken/demerit my argument? Not really. It would have certainly been a huge dent if the smokers' lawyers planned on taking this argument to court.

C gives a picture that it is allowed to have discriminatory tax laws as per the city's constitution and hence weakens the argument.

I could be absolutely wrong here. Waiting for the OA!

I may have misread C now i get your point. This makes sense!
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,686
Own Kudos:
15,313
 [1]
Given Kudos: 766
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,686
Kudos: 15,313
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Official Explanation:

Editorial: A new city ordinance would place a health and safety tax on cigarettes, with advocates arguing that the sale of cigarettes poses a public health risk to the citizens of the city who don’t smoke. Smokers’ advocates argue that this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the smokers’ advocates’ argument?

A. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens because of personal choices.
B. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens for health reasons.
C. Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution.
D. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally.
E. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can only be challenged civilly.


Question Type: Weaken
Boil It Down: A new city ordinance wants to add a health and safety tax to cigarettes. Advocates of the tax believe smokers should pay to offset the damage smoking does to nonsmokers. Advocates of smokers think the tax is discrimination.
Goal: Find the option that most weakens the argument made by smoking advocates that added taxes are discrimination.

Analysis:

First, we need to find the smokers’ advocates’ argument, so we know what portion of the passage to focus on (since there are 2 arguments being made here):

Editorial: A new city ordinance would place a health and safety tax on cigarettes, with advocates arguing that the sale of cigarettes poses a public health risk to the citizens of the city who don’t smoke. Smokers’ advocates argue that this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

Now that we know which section we’re focusing on, let’s ask ourselves what would most undermine their argument? It turns out the smokers' advocates are arguing 2 main points:

Smokers’ advocates argue that
this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers --> find an option that says the ordinance would not burden smokers, or even benefit them
and
is unlawful discrimination. --> find an option that says that this type of discrimination is totally lawful and can't be legally challenged

A. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens because of personal choices.
This is incorrect because this would strengthen the smokers’ claim.

B. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens for health reasons.
This is incorrect because, even if smoking was considered an act defensible for health reasons, this would strengthen the smokers claim.

C. Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution.
This is incorrect because this would strengthen the smokers’ claim by providing legal basis for challenge. Remember - we have to find an option that states that the tax is legal AND cannot be challenged legally.

D. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally.
This is the correct answer because, if this were true, the city ordinance placing a health and safety tax on cigarettes would have been passed by public referendum (a majority vote of eligible citizens), and could not be challenged legally within the city. Smokers and their advocates would thus have no legal claim to challenge the ordinance.

E. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can only be challenged civilly.
This is incorrect because a civil challenge to the ordinance would not likely result in it being overturned or removed from public record.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.
avatar
abhijit11234
Joined: 23 Feb 2021
Last visit: 31 Jan 2022
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Given : Smokers’ advocates argue that this ordinance would place undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

A)Strengthens the argument as it states its illegal
B)Strengthens the argument as it states its illegal
C) Strengthens the argument as it states its discriminatory legally
D) Weakens as Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally implies advocates cannot state it as unlawful discrimination
E) strengthens as It states it can be challenged in terms of civil rights

Thus answer is D
User avatar
arya251294
Joined: 03 Jan 2019
Last visit: 16 Mar 2024
Posts: 184
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 368
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 184
Kudos: 60
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
But in choosing either D or E, aren't we assuming that cigarettes are non-necessary goods?
I ignored option D and E on this ground.
:roll: :dontknow:
User avatar
Jigarpatel545
Joined: 25 Oct 2021
Last visit: 27 Feb 2023
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 2
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
undue burden on smokers and is unlawful discrimination.

Targeting on above sentence will weakens the CR

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the smokers’ advocates’ argument?

A. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens because of personal choices.
B. It is illegal for the city to discriminate against citizens for health reasons.
C. Taxes can legally be considered discriminatory within the city’s constitution.
D. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and cannot be challenged legally.

This weakens by saying that tax on cigrate are passed through public opinion or referendum so cannot be legally challenged
E. Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can only be challenged civilly.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
JoeKan1234
Joined: 27 Aug 2022
Last visit: 23 Dec 2024
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 63
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If D is negated, it will be "Taxes levied on non-necessary goods are passed by public referendum and can be challenged legally." If taxes can be challenged legally, then smokers’ advocates can challenge the taxes on the grounds of "unlawful discrimination". The advocates' position will be valid. On the other hand, if the taxes cannot be challenged legally, the advocates' claim of "unlawful discrimination" will not be valid.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
507 posts
363 posts