Self-study
Editorialist: Evidence shows that Conclusion restrictions on tobacco advertising have had a significant impact on smoking among adults. █ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that restrictions on tobacco advertising have significantly reduced smoking among adults. This is based on a correlation observed between a decline in % of people who smoke and an increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between decline in tobacco smoking and increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising is explained by the restrictions causing the decline. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. For example, maybe both the decline and the increase in restrictions are caused by something else.
9.
The reasoning in the editorialist's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
fails to consider ███████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████
The conclusion concerns adults’ smoking. Whether teens have also seen a decline in smoking doesn’t affect adults’ smoking.
b
uses evidence that █████████ ████ █ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ██████████
The conclusion is not about the entire adult population. The conclusion simply asserts a causal relationship between restrictions on advertising and a decline in smoking. This doesn’t mean every adult stopped smoking or that every adult is affected by restrictions on advertising.
c
reaches a conclusion █████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ █████ ███
The conclusion is not about “today’s adults.” It assert that restrictions have “had” a significant impact on adults’ smoking. Evidence of what has happened in the past is relevant to a claim about what effects restrictions have “had.”
d
neglects to take ████ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████
It’s not clear what impact restrictions of other products could have on smoking. The author did not assume that there weren’t restrictions on canned food, toys, or pencils, for example.
e
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ █████ ██████
This possibility, if true, shows why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. If other factors could have contributed to the decline in smoking, then the correlation between restrictions and the decline does not have to be significantly due to those restrictions.