Question

Mayor: Local anti-tobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city. Although the effectiveness of such education programs is debatable, there is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the soughtafter reduction in smoking. Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes. Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reason-ing in the argument above?

विकल्प

• A city-imposed tax on cigarette will sub-stantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome to the average cigarette consumer.

• Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.

• Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes stiff taxes on cigarettes.

• People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are people who are not informed.

Answer 1

Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.

Explanation:

The argument states that higher taxes would produce reduction in smoking. 'Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price increases for some other reason.' is the best wrong answer. It makes it sound like people will continue to buy tobacco regardless. However, Just because the’re more likely to continue buying tobacco does not mean that there was not a reduction in the amount of tobacco consumed. So, option (b) as the correct answer.