One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising

Question

One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising campaign in local newspapers which it financed by imposing a tax on cigarettes of 20 cents per pack. One year later the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes had declined by 3 percent. Clearly, what was said in the advertisements had an effect, although a small one, on the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen argument?

(A) Residents of the locality have not increased their use of other tobacco products such as snuff and chewing tobacco since the campaign went into effect.

(B) A substantial number of cigarette smokers in the locality who did not quit smoking during the campaign now smoke less than they did before it began.

(C) Admissions to the local hospital for chronic respiratory ailments were down by 15 percent one year after the campaign began.

(D) Merchants in the locality responded to the local tax by reducing the price at which they sold cigarettes by 20 cents per pack.

(E) Smokers in the locality had incomes that on average were 25 percent lower than those of nonsmokers.

dwivedys · Accepted Answer

one key assumption in the argument would be that people may have quit smoking NOT because of the message but because of incr in price. D provides additonal evidence that in fact the price had not increased at all - which corroborates the conclusion that it was the message that cause ppl to reduce smoking.

sridhar · Answer

noboru,
can u pls explain how it was choice D. I thought option D would have weakened the argument. Reducing the price by 20 cents would have increased smoking. Isn't it?

gauravnagpal · Answer

Somehow ... I was sure of B ...but you know "its different"

nusmavrik · Answer

Premises :
1. local government initiated an antismoking campaign
2. Imposed tax on cigarettes of 20 cents per pack
3. One year later the number of smokers in the locality declined
4. Antismoking campaign did work on the locality (This is not a premise)

Assumption : Efficacy of the campaign was NOT dependent on tax increase.

If the campaign reduced the cigarette smokers then it was not the tax that deterred the smokers from smoking since the merchants absorbed the tax increase. The campaign did 100%. D just says that. D is correct!

Another way to look at the argument is --- X leads to Y. Anti smoking campaign (X) caused Y (decline in smokers)
Then Z(Tax increase) did not cause Y. Alternate explanation destroys the causal argument.

In Causal Argument X -> Y
Y -> X is prohibited
Z -> Y is prohibited

Michmax3 · Answer

I picked B at first too, but now see why it can't be B. Its because the paragraph says the number of people who smoke decreased by 3%, it says nothing about the amount that they smoked. So even if every single smoker smokes less the actual number of smokers does not decrease unless they quit all together.

charleshsu0952 · Answer

I agree that D is correct even though I picked B.

It is easy to distract the focus from advertisement to tax imposing action. After all, the arguement focus on the effect of advertisement, not tax. Option D clearly shows that the tax does not affect the anti-smoking campaign to prove that advertisement is helpful.

nusmavrik · Answer

Yeah B is wrong since it does not affect the number of smokers. It affects the amount of smoking which is really NOT the efficacy. The efficacy of the campaign lies in the total number of non smokers - 
Premise : One year later the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes had declined by 3 percent. ----> "the number" is the keyword.

Deckard22 · Answer

I think (D) is still the better answer, although I can see why (B) might be tempting at first.

The gap in the original arguement is that smoking could have been reduced because of the ad campaign or it could have been because of the 20cent tax. (D) effectively nullifies the impact the tax would have had on reducing the percentage of smokers .

Choice (B) still leaves the gap in the arguement intact. In fact, it could even be a direct result of the tax. Therefore Current smokers might have cut back on smoking because the 20cent tax made it too costly OR because of the ad campaign.

I think this is a good, tough question, namely because of the well crafted 'trap' answer

subhashghosh · Answer

Answer is D as it eliminates an alternate cause for effect, i.e., increase in price as deterrent, hence the puported cause - advertisement- is the real cause.

B says "smoke less", but not that they've quit, and also "A substantial number" is a vague sounding phrase in this context. We don't know how it correlates with 3% !

soondoobu · Answer

One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising campaign in local newspapers which it financed by imposing a tax on cigarettes of 20 cents per pack. One year later the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes had declined by 3 percent. Clearly, what was said in the advertisements had an effect, although a small one, on the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes.

Conclusion: Clearly, what was said in the advertisements had an effect, although a small one, on the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen argument?

(A) Residents of the locality have not increased their use of other tobacco products such as snuff and chewing tobacco since the campaign went into effect.  This is irrelevant. We are only concerned with cigarettes, not other tobacco products.

(B) A substantial number of cigarette smokers in the locality who did not quit smoking during the campaign now smoke less than they did before it began.  I chose this one initially and found it to be a tough one to eliminate. The passage says that "the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes has declined by 3 percent". Here, we are talking about people who have quit smoking. Whereas, in answer choice B, we are only talking about the frequency of some of these smokers. Hence, B has no bearing on the argument at all. Subtle and nasty logic.

(C) Admissions to the local hospital for chronic respiratory ailments were down by 15 percent one year after the campaign began.  This might be true in real life, but it has no bearing on the argument.

(D) Merchants in the locality responded to the local tax by reducing the price at which they sold cigarettes by 20 cents per pack.  Imagine a pack of cigarettes is $5. The government introduced a tax of $0.20, so it costs $5.20. Despite the merchants reducing the price by 20 cents (essentially price staying the same), the # of people buying cigarettes decreased. This does not prove that the advertisment caused the decrease, but it certainly strengthens the argument.

(E) Smokers in the locality had incomes that on average were 25 percent lower than those of nonsmokers.  income is irrelevant.

Ashutoshranjan881 · Answer

It is a trap on first look it appears as if it is weakening the argument but when you think carefully you notice that even though the price did not change effectively there is a reduction in cigarete consumption sice the increase of price factor is out of question the only factor responible for reduced consumption is the advertisment

YashYashkratos · Answer

D) tells us that the increase in price of cigarettes did not factor in decreasing the number of smokers , strengthening the conclusion that people stopped because of the ads.

agrasan · Answer

If the price was $X per pack, govt. made it $X+0.2 per pack. The conclusion says that the increase in price led the decrease in cigarette smokers.

(A) Residents of the locality have not increased their use of other tobacco products such as snuff and chewing tobacco since the campaign went into effect.
 Incorrect , the conclusion is strictly about  cigarette  smokers, we don't care about people taking other products.

(B) A substantial number of cigarette smokers in the locality who did not quit smoking during the campaign now smoke less than they did before it began.
 Incorrect , people  smoking less  are not the part of people who have  left smoking  (covered in 3%) so this option doesn't help us anyway and is irrelevant.

(C) Admissions to the local hospital for chronic respiratory ailments were down by 15 percent one year after the campaign began.
 Incorrect , this just shows the effect of decrease in smokers but doesn't change our confidence in the relationship that increase in price per pack led the decrease in cigarette smokers.

(D) Merchants in the locality responded to the local tax by reducing the price at which they sold cigarettes by 20 cents per pack.
 Correct , this means that price per pack remained unchanged at $X per pack so it definitely creates a doubt that price per pack was somehow responsible for the decrease in cigarette smokers. This seems a good weakener so let's keep it for now.

(E) Smokers in the locality had incomes that on average were 25 percent lower than those of nonsmokers.
 Incorrect , this somewhat strengthens the conclusion that increase in price per pack might have caused the decrease in cigarette smokers.

One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising

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

One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising

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