逻辑 Critical Reasoning-11967

标记
In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

【选项】The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.

选项是否正确？

  • 正确
  • 错误

正确的用户笔记

0个赞 赞

Cindygmat 2014-09-18 06:24:51

顾客获得吸烟危害健康的信息没变在税增加前后，排除他因，留

0个赞 赞

不想再拖延 2015-06-01 21:33:44

B.消费者得到的吸烟对于健康危害的信息在增加税前，税后没有改变。改变的只有香烟的价格，所以是价格影 响sales。这是典型的他因排除来加强.

0个赞 赞

ltscy 2015-02-07 17:55:09

因果推理模式： 因为烟草税增加了，烟草销量下降了； 所以，烟草销量的下降与税后价格有关 排除他因：烟民的健康意识再增税前后没有大的变化

0个赞 赞

jandrea 2016-11-22 10:11:18

这个选项看起来无关，但是weaken和strengthen类经常需要找alternative它因来解释，所以这个排除它因来加强论点是价格因素

0个赞 赞

八毛Y 2016-11-19 19:08:22

排除他因

0个赞 赞

不考到730誓不罢休的小星星 2016-10-02 11:42:57

排除他因加强原文

0个赞 赞

梅干菜要和gmat分手 2016-07-29 15:39:54

因果型加强题目。加一个桥梁让它们联系起来或者排除他因来巩固题中的解释。

0个赞 赞

战斗乔 2016-07-14 10:05:35

原文要加强的是烟销量和烟税后价格的关系。 选项说吸烟危害人健康的信息在税前和税后没有变化，那么就排除了他因，加强了原文。 做题是看到选项的前半段就觉得原文没有提过，所以是无关选项。但是对于加强题，削弱题是会出现原文没提到的他因的。而归纳题一般都是原文提到的选项

0个赞 赞

徐嘎啦 2016-07-07 11:22:09

B.消费者得到的吸烟对于健康危害的信息在增加税前，税后没有改变。改变的只有香烟的价格，所以是价格影 响sales。这是典型的他因排除来加强.

0个赞 赞

Ines要上700 2016-06-29 04:09:17

the only way to strengthen a causation argument, regarding other variables (= anything besides price and sales, in this case) is by CONTROLLING those other variables. this is a standard and firm principle of statistical research: if there is ANY variation in some variable other than the ones under study (a "confounding variable"), then the connection between correlation and causality is weakened - because it's possible that causality might be attributable to that confounding factor, rather than to the variable(s) under study. in the case of choice (e), it's just as plausible that the increased variety of cigarettes caused the decrease in sales, for a variety of reasons (perhaps consumers were confused or turned off). this is just as plausible as your scenario. the only way to phrase choice (e) so that it strengthens the argument would be to say that there is the same degree of variety before and after the tax increase. i.e., experimental control.

0个赞 赞

Ines要上700 2016-06-29 04:04:11

this is an absolutely classic type of problem: it CONFLATES CORRELATION WITH CAUSATION. it takes a statistical correlation between cigarette tax and cigarette consumption, and postulates that one has a CAUSAL effect on the other. (here, the tax is taken to lead to decreased consumption.) anything disrupting the CAUSAL relationship between cigarette tax and cigarette consumption --> i.e., any ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE TWO ARE CORRELATED --> will ruin the argument. therefore, you can STRENGTHEN the argument by DISPENSING with such explanations. this is what choice (b) does. one possible alternative explanation is that consumers may have become more educated about the dangers of cigarettes, leading them to smoke fewer cigarettes regardless of the tax. this choice eliminates that possibility. in general, STATEMENTS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT are stronger if OTHER VARIABLES ARE "CONTROLLED" -- i.e., if NO other variables, apart from the variables under control, are allowed to change. choice (b) keeps one such variable (the amount of information available to consumers) controlled.

0个赞 赞

舟舟 2016-05-25 02:32:22

sales fall 10%---8% rise in the tax year before the tax rise, sales fall one percent sales relative to the after-tax price 其他可能原因被排除掉 货币贬值导致收入减少的这个其他原因被选项肯定，没有被排除

0个赞 赞

jeffvan 2016-05-15 22:31:41

B.消费者得到的吸烟对于健康危害的信息在增加税前，税后没有改变。改变的只有香烟的价格，所以是价格影 响sales。这是典型的他因排除来加强.

本题所有选项

GMAT

考满分GMAT备考平台-公开课天天看，免费提供强大的学习做题
系统，专业优质的在线课程助你迅速提分。

GMAT考满分App

把网站装进口袋
随时随地练习

联系我们

咨询课程

留言反馈

400-050-0390

kmf-fb@100tal.com

关于我们 免责声明 ©2012-2016 kmf.com，盈禾优仕   京ICP证160944号
考满分在线备考，成就高分