Text 1: Public health researcher Park argues that smoking bans in bars and restaurants have produced clear health benefits. Studies in cities that have implemented such bans show measurable drops in hospital admissions for heart attacks, particularly among non- smoking workers in those venues.
Text 2: Public health researcher Singh accepts the heart-attack findings but cautions against extrapolating to other forms of smoking restriction. Outdoor bans, for example, target much smaller secondhand smoke exposures, and the health rationale is far thinner. Indoor bans are well supported; some outdoor bans, Singh argues, rest on advocacy more than evidence.
Both authors would most likely agree that
- Acheck_circle
indoor smoking bans have produced measurable health benefits.
- B
all smoking bans are equally well-supported by evidence.
- C
smoking has no effect on heart disease.
- D
secondhand smoke is harmless.
Explanation
Both accept the indoor evidence; they differ on outdoor bans. A is shared. B, C, and D contradict both.