Self-study
Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city. ████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ████ █████████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that heavily increasing taxes on cigarettes sold in the city would reduce smoking in the city. He bases this on surveys which show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that increase taxes on cigarettes.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there are no unaddressed effects of increased cigarette taxes that might keep them from lowering smoking rates. He assumes that the survey captures a clear cause-and-effect relationship between higher taxes and lower smoking rates, ignoring the possibility that a drop in cigarette sales might not reflect a drop in smoking rates. Instead, people might seek cigarettes through other means.
He also assumes that the results of the survey can be applied to all cities.
6.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
A city-imposed tax ██ ██████████ ████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ █████████
This does not point out any unaddressed effects of the tax that might keep it from reducing smoking. Instead, it presents a condition which, if met, would indeed reduce the amount of smoking in the city.
b
Consumers are more ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ███████
There may be better ways to reduce cigarette purchases, but (B) doesn't weaken the argument that taxes would have some impact. Also, we still don’t know if a reduction in purchases would reduce smoking, or if the tax has some other effect that would prevent a decrease in smoking.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
c
Usually, cigarette sales ████ ████████ █████████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████████ █ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ███████████
(C) weakens the author's argument by pointing out a potential effect of the tax that might keep it from reducing smoking. Since people could find other ways to get cigarettes after the tax increase, a reduction in purchases might not mean less smoking, as the author assumed.
Alternate explanation
Alternate explanation
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
d
People who are ████ ████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███ █████████
This implies that the antismoking education programs could reduce smoking. But it doesn’t undermine the author’s conclusion, which is that increased cigarette taxes would reduce smoking. We need an answer that addresses the effects of the tax, not of the education programs.
e
Antismoking education programs ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███████████
Like (D), this speaks to the effectiveness of antismoking education programs; if they successfully reduce smoking, then they’ll lose their funding due to fewer cigarette purchases. However, it doesn't weaken the author's conclusion that higher cigarette taxes will reduce smoking.