Addiction to nicotine in cigarettes prevents many people from quitting smoking. To make quitting easier, lawmakers in Tarnia passed legislation...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Addiction to nicotine in cigarettes prevents many people from quitting smoking. To make quitting easier, lawmakers in Tarnia passed legislation that will reduce the average quantity of nicotine per cigarette by half over the next five years. Since the lower a smoker's nicotine intake is, the easier it is for that person to quit, the proportion of Tarnians attempting to quit smoking who succeed in their efforts will probably increase significantly during these five years.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Addiction to nicotine in cigarettes prevents many people from quitting smoking. |
|
| To make quitting easier, lawmakers in Tarnia passed legislation that will reduce the average quantity of nicotine per cigarette by half over the next five years. |
|
| Since the lower a smoker's nicotine intake is, the easier it is for that person to quit, the proportion of Tarnians attempting to quit smoking who succeed in their efforts will probably increase significantly during these five years. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a problem (nicotine addiction prevents quitting), presents a solution (government reducing nicotine levels), and predicts a positive outcome (more successful quitters) based on the principle that lower nicotine makes quitting easier.
Main Conclusion:
The proportion of Tarnians who successfully quit smoking will probably increase significantly over the next five years due to the nicotine reduction legislation.
Logical Structure:
The argument relies on a cause-and-effect chain: nicotine reduction policy → lower individual nicotine intake → easier quitting → higher success rates. The key link is that reducing nicotine in cigarettes will actually result in reduced nicotine intake for individual smokers.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find statements that must be true for the argument's conclusion to hold. These are unstated premises that the author relies on.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific quantitative claims (50% nicotine reduction over 5 years, significant increase in quit success rates) and causal claims (lower nicotine directly makes quitting easier).
Strategy
To find assumptions, we'll identify ways the conclusion could fail even if all stated facts remain true. The conclusion is that more Tarnians will successfully quit smoking due to the nicotine reduction law. We need to find what must be true for this reasoning chain to work.
'The strength of a person's nicotine addiction depends only on the amount of nicotine that person regularly consumes.' This statement is too extreme with the word 'only.' The argument doesn't need to assume that nicotine amount is the sole factor determining addiction strength - it only needs the weaker assumption that nicotine amount affects addiction difficulty. Other factors like genetics, psychology, or habit could also play roles without undermining the argument's logic.
'Most of the cigarette smokers in Tarnia would quit smoking if they were not addicted to nicotine.' The argument doesn't require this assumption. Even if only some smokers would quit without nicotine addiction, the legislation could still increase the proportion of successful quitters among those who attempt to quit. The argument is about improving success rates for people who are already trying to quit, not about creating new quitters.
'It is unlikely that many Tarnians who have not already become addicted to nicotine will become addicted to nicotine at some time over the next five years.' This isn't necessary for the argument. Even if new people become addicted to nicotine, this doesn't prevent the policy from helping current smokers quit more easily. The argument focuses on making quitting easier for existing smokers, not preventing new addictions.
'Tarnian smokers addicted to nicotine will not generally compensate for decrease in the amount of nicotine per cigarette by smoking more cigarettes.' This is essential to the argument's logic. If smokers compensate for lower nicotine per cigarette by smoking significantly more cigarettes, their total nicotine intake might remain the same or even increase. This would break the causal chain: reduced nicotine per cigarette → reduced total nicotine intake → easier quitting → higher success rates. Without this assumption, the policy might not actually reduce individuals' nicotine consumption, making the predicted improvement in quit rates unlikely.
'All cigarettes currently sold in Tarnia contain the maximum amount of nicotine permitted by law.' This assumption isn't necessary. Even if some cigarettes currently contain less than the maximum permitted nicotine, reducing the average nicotine content by half could still make quitting easier for many smokers. The argument works as long as the legislation meaningfully reduces nicotine levels across the market.