9 is a weakening question, most undermines the columnist's reasoning.

So this argument is very cookie cutter.

We've seen it before.

It makes use of our causal framework phenomenon hypothesis.

And what it does is instead of, it gives us a correlative premise, but instead of

directly concluding a causal conclusion, what it does is it hides it a little bit.

It makes the causal relationship a presumption, right?

From the premise, it assumes a causal relationship from the premise.

And then from that assumption, which is erroneous, they make an erroneous conclusion.

So that's not the first time you've seen this.

Plenty of other causal arguments on LSAT in the past have done exactly the same thing.

So it shouldn't be brand new.

Research shows that significant reductions in number of people smoking, so here's more

detail, especially the first-time smokers, right, in those countries impose stringent

restrictions, government regulations on tobacco advertising, right?

So first sentence just identifies a, I guess we'll call it a correlation.

Yeah, the reason I don't, I mean, how many countries?

There's like two countries.

Maybe it's more of just coincidental thing that happened, but anyway.

Okay.

So fewer advertising, right?

Less advertising.

What about less advertising?

Well, it's correlated with less smokers, right?

Fewer number of people smoking.

Okay.

So from this correlation, what do you conclude?

Nothing, right?

That's the right answer.

The answer is nothing because we learn from our core curriculum lessons on causation.

When you spot a correlated with B, there are plenty of explanations.

Maybe it's A causes B, right?

Maybe it actually is the reduction in smoking advertising that's causing the

reduction in smoking.

Maybe.

Maybe it's the other way around.

Maybe it's B causes A. Maybe it's because there's so many people for whatever reason

that are stopping smoking that they then, I don't know, lobby the legislature to get

them to pass laws preventing smoking advertising because they don't want their

children to be exposed to that stuff.

Right?

See, that's a plausible story of where B causes A, right?

Maybe it's some third factor, right, that causes both A and B. So you just can't

jump to the conclusion that, oh, it must be A causes B. It's only one possible

conclusion, right?

So now look what happens.

They're about to presume that A causes B, right?

They're about to presume, oh, look, you know, it's actually really the decrease

in advertising that's having a causal relationship on the decrease in number of

smokers, right?

They presume this causal relationship.

They don't outright conclude it.

They just presume it.

And then they go on to make their conclusion that, look, this referencing,

this correlation, provides substantial grounds for disputing the tobacco

company's claims that advertising has no significant causal impact on 10 Z smoke.

Why?

Because look, decrease in advertising causes decreased smokers, right?

So I know, you know, I jumped the gun, of course.

You know, from their actual conclusion, right, which is about like, oh, tobacco

companies are liars.

You have to push this presumption out, right?

You have to read this conclusion.

You have to wait, what?

Why are you saying this?

Oh, it must be because you've presumed a causal relationship, right, between this.

Now, I suppose actually they could turn this into a necessary assumption

question, and then just this would be the right answer for the necessary

assumption question, because that's what they presume.

Anyway, so you get it, right?

Like to attack this, just do what we always do, attack this correlation

causation, you know, this correlation gives rise to other potential causal

stories to tell, not just this one, right?

And C gives us a great alternative causal story.

countries where negative attitudes, right, where negative attitude towards

tobacco is already widespread and increasing.

Hey, so maybe that's, maybe that's actually what's causing the decrease in

smokers.

And perhaps that's actually what's causing, right, the advertising.

Now, I don't know.

I'm speculating on that, but certainly at the very least, you can

say that this negative attitude that's already present, already present, even

before the advertising was present, or the lack of advertising, I should say,

this negative attitude, this is at least very likely a viable potential

competing cause for explaining why there are fewer smokers, right?

It could also even be an explanation for why there's fewer advertising,

because look, if we're talking about democracy, right, a lot of negative

attitude towards tobacco use, you know, hopefully that gets translated into

legislation that reflects that negative attitude.

Anyway, very cookie cutter answer choice, very cookie cutter question.

The others are just not good.

exposed to tobacco advertising.

Yeah, okay.

So, you know, because smoking is addicting, right?

So, but what about people who don't already smoke, right?

You're just limiting yourself to people who smoke.

Okay.

About them, sure, they're unlikely to quit because they're already addicted.

But what?

That leaves nothing, right?

That doesn't, that leaves this causal presumption untouched because, you know,

there are plenty of new people being born, right?

People aren't born smoking.

Like drawing a distinction between broadcast media and print media when that

distinction was not drawn here and in no way, how's that relevant, right?

How's that relevant?

Broadcast media versus print media, right?

No idea.

Most people began smoking during adolescence and continue to smoke

throughout their lives.

Okay.

Well then maybe it's more reason to, what?

Help adolescents not get hooked on smoking, right?

Again, what does that have to do with this argument?

by other kinds of advertising as well.

That's great.

They're just advertising immune, right?

Give me some of those genes.

But again, it's just so irrelevant to this argument.