#9 - Editorialist: Evidence shows that restrictions on tobacco

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[zoezoe6021]

My question is that the stimulus does not state that restrictions on tobacco advertising are the only factor that has had a significant impact on smoking adults. Why (E) is correct?

I chose (C), and I still don't see why it is wrong since we cannot simply assume the smaller percentage is caused by people who smoked ten years ago quit smoking. What if those old smokers passed away?

[Adam Tyson]

This question is a classic example of a causal argument based on a sequence of events, zoezoe6021. The author concludes that one thing has caused another simply because of the timing: the restrictions got tough about 10 years ago, and since then smoking has declined a lot.

One problem with that kind of argument is that it ignores other possible causes. Maybe the real cause of the decline in smoking was new studies showing smoking to be an even more serious health risk, and people took that seriously? Maybe it was due to an increase in the cost of cigarettes, or because some influential people began a public service campaign against smoking? Maybe it was due to a general change in the culture? Any of these would be problems for the author of the argument, who wants to give substantial credit to the restrictions on advertising.

The problem with answer C is that it's simply not true. The argument is based in part on a recent survey, not one that was done 10 or 20 years ago. They probably compared the recent data to prior surveys and statistics, but that's not a problem, it's the correct way to track a change over time. A flaw answer has to be both true and relevant, meaning it not only has to accurately describe what happened, but that thing also has to matter.

Causal arguments often have other problems, like the possibility that the cause and effect are the other way around, or they might be based on bad data. If the alleged cause happens and the effect does not, or if the effect happens and the cause did not, those would also weaken a causal claim. But the big one that we see tested most frequently is the possibility of some other cause, and that's what's happening in this question and in answer E.