Self-paced
Politician: Conclusion The funding for the new nationwide health-awareness campaign should come from an increase in taxes on cigarettes. ██ ██ ████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████ █████████
███████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██████ █████████ ████████████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████
Politician's Argument
The politician concludes that a new health-awareness campaign should be funded by taxing cigarettes. As support, the politician says that smoking causes many health problems, and that it is reasonable to cover the campaign’s cost by taxing people whose habits cause health problems. Thus, it is reasonable to tax smokers.
Smoker's Argument
The smoker supports the unstated conclusion that it is not reasonable for smokers to bear the costs of this campaign, in disagreement with the politician. The smoker uses an analogy as support: consuming high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes comparable health issues to smoking, but it is unreasonable to charge those consumers for the campaign’s costs. This implies that it is also unreasonable to charge smokers.
2.
The smoker's response to the ████████████ ████████
a
offers a counterexample ████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ █████████
The smoker attacks the politician's claim that it's reasonable for smokers to bear the cost of the health-awareness campaign. To do so, the smoker draws an analogy that acts as a counterexample: the case of people who eat high-cholesterol foods.
b
presents an alternative ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████
The smoker disagrees with the politician's proposal, but never presents an alternative solution. Instead, the smoker focuses on showing that the politician's plan is unreasonable.
c
argues that the ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████
The smoker never claims that the politician's plan won't work, just that it's not reasonable. The smoker's argument is moral, not practical.
d
questions the accuracy ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ █ ██████████
The smoker doesn't disagree with the politician's claim that smoking causes health problems. In fact, the smoker seems to accept this fact when comparing these health problems to the health problems caused by high-cholesterol foods.
e
illustrates how the ████████████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████
Like (C), (E) points in the wrong direction of practicality. The smoker doesn't argue that the politician's plan will be ineffective; instead, the smoker argues it will be unreasonable on moral grounds.