study of more than 50,000 Norwegian smokers - rephrased ques

[Shree]

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

OA is A. Why is C not an answer because it attacks the basic assumption that the inital level of nicotine intake - which means that we are not comparing apples to apples ? Please explain

[esledge]

Sorry to throw this back at you, especially since you did follow all of the posting rules, but could you tell us where this is found? Chapter/# in CR guide would help...I took a quick look and didn't find it. Thanks!

[brijesh.mike]

(C) This choice neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion. The study related solely to the reduction of nicotine intake through smoking and never mentioned these other factors. The fact that the study used a diverse sample of smokers does not, in itself, undermine the validity of the conclusions.


i found out..its very much there..:)

[jnelson0612]

Thanks Mike! Do you have a question?