Politician: Conclusion The funding for the new nationwide health-awareness campaign should come from an increase in taxes on cigarettes. ██ ██ ████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████ █████████
███████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██████ █████████ ████████████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████
The politician has suggested that the new health-awareness campaign should be funded by an increase in taxes on cigarettes. This is because cigarette smoking causes many health problems, and, according to the politician, it is reasonable to make cigarette smokers — whose habits are responsible for many health problems — bear the cost of the campaign through taxation.
The smoker responds by stating that there is just as much evidence that eating high-fat, high-cholesterol foods causes as many health problems as smoking does. Then the smoker points out that it would be unreasonable to force the purchasers of those foods to fund the campaign. The conclusion, by implication, is that it is also unreasonable to force smokers to fund this campaign.
The smoker's response to the ████████████ ████████
offers a counterexample ████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ █████████
This is correct. The counterexample the smoker provides is the habit of regularly eating high-fat, high-cholesterol foods. According to the smoker, it would be unreasonable to fund the campaign by taxing this habit. Since the same concerns apply to this habit as to smoking cigarettes, this calls into question the politican's value judgment that it is reasonable to fund the campaign by increasing taxes on cigarettes.
presents an alternative ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████
The smoker does not propose any solution.
argues that the ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████
The smoker doesn't say that increasing taxes on cigarettes would fail to increase awareness about health, or not bring in enough revenue to fund the campaign. The smoker isn't concerned with whether the politician's proposed method will achieve its goal, but with the value judgment the politician makes in support of this method: that it is reasonable to target smokers to fund this campaign. The smoker's point, argued via a counterexample, is that it is not reasonable to do so.
questions the accuracy ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ █ ██████████
The smoker isn't concerned with the politican's information — say, whether cigarette smoking actually causes health problems — but with the politician's value judgment building on that information: that it is reasonable to tax smokers for this campaign.
illustrates how the ████████████ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████
The smoker does not suggest that the politician’s proposal would cause people to smoke more cigarettes or have worse health.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.