In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania's annual revenues. Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In Gandania, where the government has a monopoly on tobacco sales, the incidence of smoking-related health problems has risen steadily for the last twenty years. |
|
| The health secretary recently proposed a series of laws aimed at curtailing tobacco use in Gandania. |
|
| Profits from tobacco sales, however, account for ten percent of Gandania's annual revenues. |
|
| Therefore, Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed laws. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by establishing a health crisis (rising smoking problems), then presents a proposed solution (anti-tobacco laws), but introduces a financial obstacle (government depends on tobacco revenue), leading to the conclusion that the laws can't be implemented.
Main Conclusion:
Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed anti-tobacco laws.
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that because tobacco sales provide 10% of government revenue, any laws that reduce tobacco use would necessarily hurt the government financially enough to make the laws unaffordable. The logic is: Financial dependency + proposed restriction = unaffordable policy.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that Gandania cannot afford to institute the proposed anti-tobacco laws
Precision of Claims
The key claim is about financial capability - specifically that losing 10% of annual revenues from tobacco sales would make the proposed laws unaffordable for Gandania
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that show Gandania CAN actually afford to institute these laws despite the 10% revenue loss. We can do this by:
- Showing the financial impact isn't as severe as assumed
- Demonstrating there are financial benefits that offset the loss
- Revealing that the 10% dependency isn't as critical as it seems
This tells us that all health care in Gandania is government-funded. This significantly weakens the argument because if the government pays for all healthcare, then the steadily rising smoking-related health problems mentioned in the passage represent major government expenses. By implementing laws to reduce tobacco use, the government would likely save substantial money on healthcare costs - savings that could offset or even exceed the 10% revenue loss from tobacco sales. This directly challenges the conclusion that Gandania cannot afford the proposed laws by showing there's a compelling financial reason (reduced healthcare expenses) to implement them.
This says implementing the laws won't significantly increase tobacco exports. While this might seem relevant since it suggests domestic tobacco reduction won't hurt export revenue, this doesn't address the core issue. The argument is about domestic revenue loss from reduced domestic sales, not about export impacts. Even if exports aren't affected, the government would still lose that crucial 10% of revenue from domestic tobacco sales, so the affordability concern remains unchanged.
This states that tobacco's revenue percentage has remained steady in recent years. This actually supports rather than weakens the argument. If tobacco consistently provides 10% of revenue, this reinforces how dependent the government is on this income source. A steady dependency suggests the revenue loss from anti-tobacco laws would be predictable and significant, making the laws even more unaffordable.
This tells us tobacco profits are the largest single revenue source for the government. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument by showing just how financially dependent Gandania is on tobacco sales. If tobacco is their biggest single revenue source, losing this income would be even more devastating than the argument suggests, making the proposed laws seem even less affordable.
This says no government official has previously proposed anti-tobacco laws. This is irrelevant to the economic argument. Whether or not such laws have been proposed before doesn't change the current financial reality that tobacco sales provide 10% of government revenue. The novelty of the proposal doesn't address whether the government can afford to implement it.