#6 - Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)

The stimulus argues that since cigarette smoking is a health hazard, governments should ban cigarette ads.

The argument is based on the idea that governments should not permit the promotion of harmful behavior. Since you are asked to identify a supporting principle, you should select a choice that broadly supports the idea that governments should not allow the promotion of harmful behavior.

Answer choice (A): This choice is helpful, because it would give the government grounds for eliminating a particular kind of cigarette ad. However, camels might still be allowed to smoke, and cigarettes could still be otherwise promoted in ads. This choice would not provide grounds for eliminating cigarette ads in general.

Answer choice (B): The stimulus does not suggest that cigarette ads claim that cigarettes are healthful. This principle, in any case, might permit cigarette ads as long as they acknowledged cigarettes are not healthy, but you are supposed to choose the response that allows governments to ban cigarette ads.

Answer choice (C): This choice merely demands that cigarette ads disclose the health risks entailed by smoking, but you are supposed to choose the response that bans cigarette ads.

Answer choice (D): This choice concerns products rather than advertisements. The argument was not that cigarettes should be banned; the argument was that cigarette ads should be banned.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct choice. If advertisements should promote only healthy products, this provides grounds for governments to ban any ad that promotes cigarettes, so this principle provides the most support for the stimulus.

[Etsevdos]

Can we also say for E:
Ad--> healthy. CP: Not healthy --> No add

Stimulus : not healthy --> no add; therefore Es CP matches the stimulus?

[Claire Horan]

Yes, that's right. Nice work!

[lsat_novice]

I answered A and I now understand why it's wrong...because it focuses on people being depicted in the ads, rather than what's being advertised. BUT I still take issue with Answer E. I would think that a better answer would be "Advertisements should not promote health hazards." When I read E, I think to myself, "Well, what about health-neutral products? Advertisements can't only promote things that are good for us (i.e. 'healthful')." That was why I originally eliminated E and went with A.

[Adam Tyson]

If you don't mind me paraphrasing you, lsat_novice, what you're saying is that answer E went too far, right? That is, we only needed to say that we shouldn't allow advertising of unhealthy products, and E went beyond that to also ban advertising for health-neutral products. You're right about that, but that doesn't make the answer wrong! A strengthen or justify answer can go beyond what is needed, as long as it does the job we've asked of it, which is to strengthen or justify the conclusion.

Imagine an answer that said "Governments should ban all advertising other than television commercials for broccoli." Wouldn't that, if true, support the claim that ads promoting smoking should be banned? Along with ads for bacon, socks, toothpaste, cars, treadmills, and sham-wows, etc.

Don't worry about an answer going too far when being asked to strengthen, justify, or weaken a conclusion, unless the stem asked you to pick an answer that was required to strengthen, justify, weaken, etc. We've seen a few of those over the years, and they can be a little tricky, especially because one answer is likely to go further than required while the correct answer goes just far enough. That's not the case here, though, so it's okay to go overboard.

[vbkehs]

Can you please clarify your explanation of why A is wrong? "Camels might still be allowed to smoke" seems like this is beyond the realm of common sense that the LSAT assumes of its readers. To me, it's common sense that camels don't/won't smoke. I thought E was incorrect because it implies that advertisements shouldn't promote non-healthful products, like kites or a sham-wow. Answer choice A) was on the nose for me and described a principle that exactly matched the stimulus with its language of "...should not be allowed to endanger health" and "smoking has shown to be a health hazard."

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)

The stimulus argues that since cigarette smoking is a health hazard, governments should ban cigarette ads.

The argument is based on the idea that governments should not permit the promotion of harmful behavior. Since you are asked to identify a supporting principle, you should select a choice that broadly supports the idea that governments should not allow the promotion of harmful behavior.

Answer choice (A): This choice is helpful, because it would give the government grounds for eliminating a particular kind of cigarette ad. However, camels might still be allowed to smoke, and cigarettes could still be otherwise promoted in ads. This choice would not provide grounds for eliminating cigarette ads in general.

Answer choice (B): The stimulus does not suggest that cigarette ads claim that cigarettes are healthful. This principle, in any case, might permit cigarette ads as long as they acknowledged cigarettes are not healthy, but you are supposed to choose the response that allows governments to ban cigarette ads.

Answer choice (C): This choice merely demands that cigarette ads disclose the health risks entailed by smoking, but you are supposed to choose the response that bans cigarette ads.

Answer choice (D): This choice concerns products rather than advertisements. The argument was not that cigarettes should be banned; the argument was that cigarette ads should be banned.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct choice. If advertisements should promote only healthy products, this provides grounds for governments to ban any ad that promotes cigarettes, so this principle provides the most support for the stimulus.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer A is literally about what you see in the ads, vbkehs. If it is true that ads shouldn't show people doing unhealthy things, that would have zero impact on the conclusion about banning ads for smoking, because the ads could continue just the way they are right now, without showing anyone actually smoking! Pictures of the packaging would still be fine, as would pictures of cowboys riding into sunsets, well-dressed couples laughing together at upscale bars, and yes, cartoon animals with lit cigarettes hanging out of their mouths. Just so long as they don't show PEOPLE actually SMOKING they would be fine under this principle!

Answer E is much stronger. If ads should only promote healthful products, that supports the complete elimination of all ads for smoking, no matter what those ads actually depict. Yes, it might also eliminate ads for the sham-wow, and kites (I would love to see a commercial for a kite), and all fast food products, and just about anything else you can imagine, but being stronger than we need is not a problem in a Strengthen question. What if we had an answer that said "all advertising should be make illegal"? That would for sure be the strongest support for "governments should ban all advertisements that promote smoking," wouldn't it? What a great answer that would be, since we want the answer that "most strongly supports" the author's claim!

Don't worry about a Strengthen answer being too strong, but DO worry about an answer not going far enough. Answer A doesn't actually do anything to support a total ban on smoking ads, but only supports a limitation on what those ads may contain.