Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.6K All Categories
- 27.5K LSAT
- 16.7K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 73 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 109 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 3 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 42 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 20 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.9K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 599 Technical Problems
- 277 Off-topic
PT11.S2.Q16 - Cigarette smoking has been shown to be
wkim2015
Member
Can someone please explain to me why the answer in this question is (e) and not (a)? I feel like (e) is unnecessary. Why would it have to promote only healthful products? Isn't (a) supporting the conclusion in a right way? Thanks so much for the help!
Comments
Oh, this is a tough one!
(Also, I believe you're referencing PT11.S2.Q06 instead of Q16)
So the argument is,
P: cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard
C: governments should ban all advertisements that promote smoking
The issue with AC A is pretty subtle.
AC A: advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health. (emphasis mine)
An advertisement can promote something without showing it. For example, an advertiser could simply write, "smoking is awesome. do it." on a giant billboard or TV ad, and it would be 'okay' since it doesn't actually show someone holding a cancer stick to his lips. So AC A doesn't do a good job of bridging the premise and the conclusion.
Also, what about advertisements like public service announcements (PSAs)? The majority of PSAs try to dissuade from doing unhealthy things by showing the consequences of engaging in harmful behavior. Like PSAs that show kids driving drunk and getting into accidents to emphasize that driving under the influence isn't "cool" and can have awful, life-changing consequences. So AC A might extend to banning advertisements that are in fact trying to prevent, not promote, dangerous behavior.
AC E: advertisements should promote only healthful products
AC E is focusing on the content of the advertising (rather than the method being used in the advertisement), just like the stimulus. So according to AC E, if it's not healthful (i.e. cigarette smoking, as we're told from the stimulus), it should not be promoted in an advertisement. This allows us to address the gap between the premise and conclusion.
And you're right about A being a little off. The opposite of unhealthy isn't necessarily "healthy." But then we need to remember that this is a strengthening question (as opposed to a sufficient assumption question), and that AC E does a good enough job of addressing the gap.
Hope this helps!
thank you! this was really helpful!