#3 - Consumer: A new law requires all cigarette packaging

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[hlee18]

Greetings,

I answered this question with B. I'm trying to understand why B is wrong and D is correct. Part of the problem might be the sufficient to necessary condition setup of the question itself, especially with how the conclusion + premise phrase of the last sentence, "This law will not affect the smoking habits of most people who smoke cigarettes regularly, since most of these people rarely look at the packaging when they take out a cigarette".

Would this sentence be structured as the following: (Sufficient condition) This law will not affect the smoking habits of most people who smoke cigarettes regularly (Necessary condition) most of these people rarely look at the packaging when they take out a cigarette?

I realize that B and D have their sufficient and necessary conditions flipped, but I'm having a hard time identifying how it fits to the original structure of the main conclusion + premise of the question.

Thanks!

[Jay Donnell]

Hi hlee18!

As a Justify question, the stimulus is more likely than most to contain some form of conditional reasoning, and this particular example stays pretty true to form.

However, what is always the most important element in your method is to separate the relevant premise(s) from the conclusion, so that we can find the "gap" that will be 100% filled by the correct choice.

The entire argument really boils down to simply the last sentence, which contains both the main conclusion and the primary premise used by the author in support. The first half of the sentence contains the conclusion, and a good way to help decipher that breakdown is to be aware of the contextual clue of the finding the word 'since' behind the major divisive comma. Often, an entire argument can be found within one sentence, and the use of the words since, as, because and for directly behind that major comma help to signal that the first half of the sentence contains the conclusion, and the proposition following the comma presents the support. For example: The beach will be crowded today, since the weather is unnaturally warm for March.

In this case then, the argument is broken down as such:

Premise: most smokers rarely look at the packaging before smoking

_______________________
Conclusion: the new law will not affect the smoking habits of most smokers


In a sense, we have a situation exactly like this:

A

_______
B

Which means that the 'missing link' that would justify the argument would be (A --> B).


That 'bridging the gap' strategy (or Mechanistic Approach) here leads us to prephrase that the equivalent missing piece for the argument at hand would be:

(rarely look at packaging before smoking --> not affect smoking habits)


The correct choice of D presents exactly that idea, especially when you use the term unless to mean "if not," which is always a handy mechanism to diagram the tricky words of unless, until, without and except. Using that 'if not' translation, answer choice D says: if you don't frequently check the packaging before smoking, this new packaging cannot affect smoking habits.

That idea fills the gap in perfectly, which is why D is the correct response.

The incorrect answer of B is essentially a Mistaken Negation of the correct answer, which is a tricky but common trap in Justify answer choices.

This got lengthier than I anticipated but I hope it was helpful! Please let me know if you need any further clarification and I am here and happy to help however I can!

-Jay

[hlee18]

Great, I can definitely see the mistaken negation now. Thanks!

[theamazingrace]

Hi hlee18!

As a Justify question, the stimulus is more likely than most to contain some form of conditional reasoning, and this particular example stays pretty true to form.

However, what is always the most important element in your method is to separate the relevant premise(s) from the conclusion, so that we can find the "gap" that will be 100% filled by the correct choice.

The entire argument really boils down to simply the last sentence, which contains both the main conclusion and the primary premise used by the author in support. The first half of the sentence contains the conclusion, and a good way to help decipher that breakdown is to be aware of the contextual clue of the finding the word 'since' behind the major divisive comma. Often, an entire argument can be found within one sentence, and the use of the words since, as, because and for directly behind that major comma help to signal that the first half of the sentence contains the conclusion, and the proposition following the comma presents the support. For example: The beach will be crowded today, since the weather is unnaturally warm for March.

In this case then, the argument is broken down as such:

Premise: most smokers rarely look at the packaging before smoking

_______________________
Conclusion: the new law will not affect the smoking habits of most smokers


In a sense, we have a situation exactly like this:

A

_______
B

Which means that the 'missing link' that would justify the argument would be (A --> B).


That 'bridging the gap' strategy (or Mechanistic Approach) here leads us to prephrase that the equivalent missing piece for the argument at hand would be:

(rarely look at packaging before smoking --> not affect smoking habits)


The correct choice of D presents exactly that idea, especially when you use the term unless to mean "if not," which is always a handy mechanism to diagram the tricky words of unless, until, without and except. Using that 'if not' translation, answer choice D says: if you don't frequently check the packaging before smoking, this new packaging cannot affect smoking habits.

That idea fills the gap in perfectly, which is why D is the correct response.

The incorrect answer of B is essentially a Mistaken Negation of the correct answer, which is a tricky but common trap in Justify answer choices.

This got lengthier than I anticipated but I hope it was helpful! Please let me know if you need any further clarification and I am here and happy to help however I can!

-Jay

I am a bit confused by your explanation. I guessed and choose D and want understand why B is wrong.

(Sufficient condition) The law will not affect the smoking habits of most people who smoke cigarettes regularly (Necessary condition) most of these people rarely look at the packaging when they take out a cigarette

B. Look at packaging ----> Affect smoking habits

D. Due to the Unless Equation I thought the term that is modified by unless, except, until or without becomes the necessary condition and the remaining term is negated and becomes the sufficient condition. So,
Affect smoking habits -----> Look at the packaging. Instead of Will NOT affect smoking habits ------> Look at the packaging.

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

You appear to have the author's sufficient condition (their premise) and necessary condition (their conclusion) reversed here, theamazingrace. The author is trying to prove that the images will not affect smoking habits, so "no effect on smoking habits" is what the author thinks is necessary. The author's evidence for this claim - the thing they think is sufficient to prove their case - is that regular smokers rarely look at the package when they take out a cigarette. Once you get that conditional relationship in the right order, answer B should stand out to you as a Mistake Negation of that relationship.

You have the "Unless Equation" correctly described - good job! Jay's explanation took a different route, what's sometimes called the "if not" approach, and while it works it is not the preferred method in our standard Powerscore methodology. Stick with the Unless Equation as you understand it and you'll do fine - in answer D, that means the sufficient condition is "if the packaging affects smoking habits" and the necessary condition is "they look at it frequently."