After reviewing, i understand the conflict is that Kendrick says cig ads should be prevented but also remain legal. I dont understand how that's a conflict.There are lots of things we all think should be prevented, but to make illegal would be over the top.
I am obviously one of those who fell for the sucker conflict and thought the conflict was that "how could it be legal to have fatty food commercials and not cigarette commercials?", but after reviewing, i still think my sucker conflict makes more sense.
can someone help me understand more intuitively why the previous was the conflict and not the latter?
Comments
15. Resolve the Discrepancy
Analysis: Super hard. The difficulty in this stimulus is sifting through it to figure out the two conclusions. Many of the wrong answer choices will capitalize on that difficulty.
Discrepancy: How come cigarette advertisements should remain legal even though governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so?
Elimination: (A) contradicts that the ads should remain legal. (B) Weakens the second conclusion, but has no effect on the discrepancy. (C) has no bearing on how governments’s ability to try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised. (D) looks good. (E) contradicts that governments should try to prevent advertisements.
Selection: (D) allows ads to be legal while also giving the government a way to prevent the ads. (D) is the correct answer.