#9 - Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

The columnist in this stimulus makes a causal argument about the effect of advertising on the tendency to smoke. Citing research showing significant reductions in the number of first-time smokers in countries with stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising, the columnist concludes that tobacco companies are wrong when they say that “advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.” Essentially, the columnist concludes that the restrictions on tobacco advertising caused the reduction in the number of first-time smokers.

This is a Weaken question. Given the causal nature of the argument, we know that the correct answer choice will attack the argument’s causal conclusion. Since we are not going to doubt that the reduction in the number of first-time smokers occurred, we will focus our attack on the inference about what caused the reduction. The evidence about the restrictions on tobacco advertising only shows that there is a correlation between a reduction in tobacco advertising and a reduction in first-time smokers, but it does not prove causation. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will most likely identify an alternate cause for the reduction in the number of first-time smokers in those countries.

Answer choice (A): The focus of the argument was on the reduction in the number of first-time smokers. This answer choice does not address the issue of first-time smokers, and so does not weaken the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): The comparison in this answer choice between the restrictions on broadcast media and those on print media is irrelevant to the conclusion, because the argument did not distinguish between the relative impacts of broadcast and print media on the tendency to smoke.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice because it introduces an alternate cause for the reduction in smoking: a pre-existing negative attitude toward tobacco use that may also lead to the prohibition on tobacco advertising.

Answer choice (D): Here, the answer choice does nothing to address the effect of advertising on the tendency to smoke, and so is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because it deals with only a subset of the population, those for whom no advertising has a significant effect. This does not attack the conclusion that the advertising in this case had a significant impact on the tendency to smoke.

[Cking14]

Hi,

For this question, I chose answer choice (A) because I thought that if it was true that people were unlikely to quit smoking even after advertising is gone, then it proves that the tobacco companies WERE correct in the first place. So, it seems to undermine the author's arguments that the tobacco companies were wrong. The correct answer here is (C), but what does advertising in other countries have to do with the stimulus? And how does it weaken the author's arguments about the tobacco companies being incorrect?

Please help!
Thanks!
Chris

[David Boyle]

Hi,

For this question, I chose answer choice (A) because I thought that if it was true that people were unlikely to quit smoking even after advertising is gone, then it proves that the tobacco companies WERE correct in the first place. So, it seems to undermine the author's arguments that the tobacco companies were wrong. The correct answer here is (C), but what does advertising in other countries have to do with the stimulus? And how does it weaken the author's arguments about the tobacco companies being incorrect?

Please help!
Thanks!
Chris

Hello,

In answer C, it's not about other countries, but about countries in general, seemingly including those countries who have the anti-smoking advertising. If those countries already have a negative attitude towards smoking, that provides an alternate cause, so that the advertising ban may not be the cause of reduced smoking.
Answer A seems to get things backwards. Even if after advertising ceases, there isn't a reduction in smoking, there could still be a reduction while advertising is still going on.

David

[theamazingrace]

I chose answer A for the same reason as Cking14. I still don't understand why it is wrong. I made the correct pre-phase that there could be an alternative cause which I thought A was doing by saying people are unlikely to quit MERELY because they are no longer exposed to tobacco advertising.

Is A wrong because the stimulus does not say that there will be a complete stop in advertising but instead stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising were imposed?


Thanks

[Robert Carroll]

Grace,

The argument is not committed to the idea that the cessation of advertising alone was responsible for the reduction in smoking, just that it was a casual factor. So when answer choice (A) claims that people will not stop smoking just because of an absence of ads, that's not weakening the author - the author can perfectly well accept that ads ALONE are not responsible for smoking (or the lack thereof), while still thinking that there is some causal nexus.

It's all about what the author's argument is. The author thinks that ads have some effect on smoking. Saying that ads alone are unlikely to change things isn't attacking the author's argument - the author never said (or was rationally committed to thinking) that ads ALONE were the cause.

Further, the author in the stimulus is pointing out that first-time smokers are reduced in countries with ad restrictions. Answer choice (A) provides reasons for complicating a connection between ad cessation and smoking cessation among current smokers, but does nothing to affect an argument about whether ad cessation can reduce the number of people who take up smoking in the first place.

Robert Carroll