Comments

• taschasp Alum Member Sage ⭐

  January 2020 796 karma

  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 Member

  January 2020 476 karma

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