PT11.S4.Q8 - cigarette smoking and excessive consumption of candy

Whatslsat

Could someone please explain this for me.

I understand that

A's wrong because it doesn't paraphrase the MP completely
B and D's are wrong for obvious reasons.
I picked C but half-guessed it.

help

Admin note: minor title edit; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

taschasp

So it sounds like you were choosing between C and E.

E is wrong because the argument doesn't say that. The argument goes,

if Candy manufacturers AREN'T held responsible for health problems caused by candy consumers, then Tobacco companies SHOULDN'T be held responsible for health problems caused by tobacco.

Let's express this as /CCHR -> /TCHR
CCHR - candy companies held responsible
TCHR - tobacco companies held responsible

E is the classic fallacy where you take A->B and assume that B->A. A->B DOES NOT IMPLY B->A!!! So here, take a close look at E, and it's saying that CCHR -> TCHR
But it's not saying that!
The proper contrapositive of the argument is: TCHR -> CCHR

But none of that is even the main point of the argument. "CCHR" is the reasoning (reasoning by analogy) that the argument makes. But what's the main point? What does the argument want you to walk away believing? Well, the main point is that tobacco companies shouldn't be held responsible for smokers' health problems just because those health problems are caused by smoking. That's the main point. And the reasoning is that, in another industry (candy), that same idea holds true.

Whatslsat

I can't thank you enough for this careful detailed explanations. I get it very clearly now. Thank you so so much!!