Switching to “low-yield” cigarettes, those that yield less nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide than regular cigarettes when tested on a standard machine, does not, in general, reduce the incidence of heart attack. This result is surprising, since nicotine and carbon monoxide have been implicated as contributing to heart disease.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

Smoking low-yield cigarettes has become fashionable, as relatively healthier styles of life have become more popular than those that have been identified as risky.

For those who are themselves smokers, inhaling the smoke of others is not generally a significant factor contributing to an increased risk of heart disease.

Nicotine does not contribute as much as to heart disease as does carbon monoxide.

Carbon monoxide and cigarette tar are not addictive substances.

People who switch from high-yield to low-yield cigarettes often compensate by increasing the number and depth of puffs in order to maintain their accustomed nicotine level.

Correct

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Unlock the full explanation

Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.

Create free account Sign in

Comments

KonstantinaMay 21

I get why E works, but can someone explain why A is wrong? The fashionable thing kinda threw me off at first glance.

AnhMay 31

A talks about popularity/fashion, which doesn't affect the actual heart attack incidence. It's just a distractor about attitudes, not physiology.

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can explain an apparent contradiction in a way that makes both facts true.

Common trap

Picking an option that explains one side of the paradox while making the other side false.