In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?" The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.

Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?

Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.

In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.

The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.

There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.

The state law would not affect existing local ordinances banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances.	What it says: Every city and nearly every town in this state already has rules against smoking What it does: Sets up the current smoking restriction landscape as background info What it is: Author's factual claim about existing conditions
A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?"	What it says: People are going around asking voters to sign a petition with a pretty general question about statewide smoking limits What it does: Introduces the petition and shows how workers are presenting it to voters in simple terms What it is: Author's description of current petition activity
The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.	What it says: The actual petition wants to ban smoking in stores and public government buildings specifically What it does: Reveals the specific content of the petition, which contrasts with the general way it's being presented to voters What it is: Author's explanation of the petition's actual proposal

Argument Flow:

This passage doesn't present a traditional argument but rather describes a situation that could be misleading. It starts by telling us what already exists (local smoking ordinances), then shows us how a petition is being presented to voters (in general terms), and finally reveals what the petition actually says (specific restrictions).

Main Conclusion:

There is no explicit conclusion - this is a setup passage that describes a potentially misleading petition situation.

Logical Structure:

The structure creates a contrast between what voters might expect (extending current local ordinances statewide) versus what the petition actually proposes (specific restrictions in retail and government spaces). The potential for misleading voters comes from this gap between expectation and reality.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find circumstances that would make the petition misleading to voters who think it's just extending existing local ordinances statewide

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve the scope and nature of restrictions - what's currently covered by local ordinances versus what the petition actually proposes

Strategy

Since this is a weaken question, we need to find scenarios where the petition would be misleading. The voters think they're signing something that extends local ordinances statewide, but we need circumstances where the petition actually does something different from what local ordinances do. We should look for gaps between what exists locally and what the petition proposes.

Answer Choices Explained

Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.

This discusses health costs and insurance premiums affecting nonsmokers. While this might be relevant to smoking policy debates, it doesn't address the misleading nature of the petition. Whether smoking affects insurance costs has nothing to do with the gap between what voters think they're signing (extending local ordinances) versus what the petition actually proposes. This doesn't make the petition misleading.

In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail establishments and government offices that are open to the public.

This mentions that rural areas have fewer retail establishments and government offices. The petition targets these specific types of locations, so having fewer of them in rural areas doesn't create misleading circumstances. If anything, this might make the petition less impactful in rural areas, but it doesn't make the petition misleading about extending local ordinances statewide.

The state law would supersede the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the state law does.

This is correct. The statement reveals that the state law would actually supersede (replace) local ordinances that are stronger than the proposed state law. This creates a deeply misleading situation because voters think they're extending their existing strong local protections statewide, but they're actually signing something that would weaken their current protections by replacing stronger local ordinances with weaker state restrictions.

There is considerable sentiment among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.

This discusses voter sentiment favoring smoking restrictions. If most voters already support smoking restrictions, this doesn't make the petition misleading - it just shows there's support for the cause. The existence of widespread support doesn't create any misleading circumstances about what the petition actually does.

The state law would not affect existing local ordinances banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that smoking would constitute a fire hazard.

This states the state law wouldn't affect local fire hazard ordinances. This actually reduces potential misleading aspects because it clarifies that some local ordinances would remain intact. If voters knew their fire safety smoking bans would stay in place, this wouldn't make the petition misleading - it would provide clarity.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...