CR: According to a study more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers

[NMencia09]

According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, smokers who reduced their nicotine intake from cigarettes, even by up to 50 percent, did not achieve significant health benefits. The mortality rate for those who cut back on cigarettes was not lower than that for heavier smokers; moreover, the rate of cardiovascular disease was similar across all subsets of smokers in the study. As a result, the sponsors of the study claim that reducing nicotine intake does not improve one's health.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously jeopardizes the findings of the study described above?

A The majority of study participants minimized their nicotine withdrawal symptoms through the use of skin patches and chewing gum that provide nicotine to the body.
B Many of the study’s participants periodically dined in restaurants in which smoking was permitted.
C The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake.
D Quitting smoking entirely results in a marked reduction in the ill effects of smoking.
E Men and women who smoked pipes and cigars were excluded from the study.

Answer is (A). My question is: If the conclusion had read: As a result, the sponsors of the study claim that reducing TOBACCO/CIGARETTES intake does not improve one's health.

Would this change the result ? In other words, is the fact that the conclusion contains the word "nicotine" make (A) correct?

Argument: participants reduced smoking, no health benefits were found, therefore reducing the amount of nicotine doesnt produce one's health. BUT, if the participants didnt REALLY reduce their nicotine intake (although this seems vulnerable because you assume that by using nicotine patches/ gum, they are still reducing nicotine by not smoking- the reason I got this incorrect), then the argument falls apart.

Question is if changing conclusion to "reducing tobacco intake" would change the conclusion. Would GMAT try and trick us this way? i.e. the connection between nicotine and tobacco?

Thanks.

[tim]

The GMAT always tries to trick you. That's why when you see in A that nicotine could have been delivered another way you should immediately pay careful attention to that answer choice. In general, you need to notice those subtle changes. If they had changed the wording of the conclusion, that still would not have changed the fact that they are claiming no increase in health without considering all the issues that may have an impact on the health of the participants..

[benkriger]

Please advise, as I disagree with the question/answer.

According to a study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers, smokers who reduced their nicotine intake from cigarettes, even by up to 50 percent, did not achieve significant health benefits. The mortality rate for those who cut back on cigarettes was not lower than that for heavier smokers; moreover, the rate of cardiovascular disease was similar across all subsets of smokers in the study. As a result, the sponsors of the study claim that reducing nicotine intake does not improve one's health.

so the study had three outcomes:
1) Smokers who reduced their nicotine intake from cigarettes, even by up to 50 percent, did not achieve significant health benefits
2) The mortality rate for those who cut back on cigarettes was not lower than that for heavier smokers
3) The rate of cardiovascular disease was similar across all subsets of smokers in the study

#2 and #3 have NOTHING to do with nicotine.

Therefore, answer choice B has just as much weight as answer choice A. Both make you have too much of an assumption.

A) Who said the nicotine patches provided an amount of nicotine to not make it true that in any event, it was still a reduction in nicotine?
B) If you cut back on cigarettes but breath in second hand smoke, you're still smoking

[aliassad]

There are two things to note here:

First , the difference between "many" and "majority". Many could be 10% of the total whereas majority means at least 51% . So on the aforementioned basis choice b is very weak


Second, In strengthen and weaken questions we need to choose the best answer or the least worst answer. Compared to other choices A weakens . In weaken questions we do not need to disprove the argument , we are only required to nudge the argument in direction of "weakeners" using common sense assumptions

Ali Asad

[tim]

thanks, Ali. the "many" versus "majority" distinction here is conclusive if nothing else distinguished A from B for you..

[benkriger]

Ah yes - I see it now. Stepping back from the problem and then coming to it again a few days later with a clear mind helps. Choice A is clearly the best answer. Choice B may also be a little out of scope.

Thanks guys.

[tim]

:)

[JessieT807]

Can someone please explain to me why answer choice C ("The study’s participants started smoking at different ages and had varied initial nicotine intake)" is incorrect? I saw this statement as weakening the validity of the study because it did not control for factors that may affect and thus weaken the conclusion.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Actually, the onus is on you to explain why C 'jeopardizes the findings of the study'. Unfortunately, your reasoning has some gaps.

First of all, we should identify the 'findings of the study'. Your comment about 'weakening the validity of the study' suggests that you're trying to rate the study as a whole. That's not our job! We just have to address the claim that 'reducing nicotine intake does not improve one's health'.

Second, be really careful not to introduce your own assumptions. How do you know that the study 'did not control for factors'? They may have some cunning statistical methods to take account of different ages. We have no details about how the study was conducted.