Premise:

Government: Nuclear plants are completely safe and there’s nothing to worry about. Ok cool. Also, we’re eliminating the financial liability in case something like a nuclear accident happens because if (when) and we’re paying a chunky compensation, the nuclear plant will go bankrupt.

People: oh wait, you’re saying that it’s safe and there’s nothing to worry about, but at the same time, you’re decreasing financial liability because you assume there’s a chance something might happen? Which is it? It’s contradictory. We absolutely need to worry!

AC C, which I initially picked, actually makes a valid argument. It is also relevant to the stimulus as well, but it does not JUSTIFY the conclusion. It just creates another argument based on the consequences of the actions.

AC D clearly says that if the government is acting as it might happen, it very well might happen!

So just like any other weakening question, we should aim to weaken the support that the premise (in this case, the survey) provides the conclusion with. Now, the survey is saying once the tax is imposed, the sales would drop in that specific area and the assumption is that smoking will decrease as a result. But answer choice C is saying that it is evident that once an area imposes taxes on cigarettes, other areas surrounding the city will experience an increase in their sale. Hence, the overall purchase will stay the same and the consumption will be intact as well.

B on the other hand, says it's likely that people will continue purchasing a good if the price increase is due to imposing a tax. But so what? Do we assume that this definitely will happen? It says likely, so it's one of the possible outcomes.

I also fell for B, and I wasn't paying attention to the fact that the survey's saying "the sale" would drop, not the consumption.

Working full time and very much interested.

I'm in Van as well and would love that session. We can gather at VPL do a prep test together!

Totally interested. let me know how I can join