LSAT 116 – Section 2 – Question 15

LSAT 116 - Section 2 - Question 15

June 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:48

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT116 S2 Q15	+LR	Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 7% 158 B 17% 161 C 8% 159 D 38% 167 E 30% 161	158 169 179	+Hardest	146.822 +SubsectionMedium

Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so, since such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practice. But cigarette advertisements should remain legal since advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

How can governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised be justified in these attempts, even though cigarette advertisements should remain legal?

Objective

The correct answer should show how governments might be justified in trying to stop cigarette advertisements even if these advertisements should still be legal. Perhaps there’s a method to prevent cigarette advertisements that doesn’t involve trying to ban them or make them illegal.

Any advertisement that encourages people to engage in an unhealthy practice should be made illegal, even though the legality of some such advertisements is currently uncontroversial.

One part of the discrepancy is the fact that the advertisements should be legal. (A) contradicts this fact by saying these advertisements shouldn’t be legal. Denying one of the facts doesn’t help resolve the discrepancy.

The advertisement of fattening foods, unlike that of cigarettes, should not be prevented, because fattening foods, unlike cigarettes, are not addictive.

What the government should do with fattening foods doesn’t impact what the government should do with cigarettes.

Most advertisements should be legal, although advertisers are always morally responsible for ensuring that their advertisements do not encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices.

But how can the government still be justified in attempting to prevent cigarette advertisements from being shown? This answer doesn’t provide a potential answer.

Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition.

Even though cigarette advertisements should be legal, the government can be justified in preventing cigarette advertisements through financial disincentives. For example, maybe taxing the ads could get cigarette companies to refrain from showing ads.

Governments should place restrictions on cigarette advertisements so as to keep them from encouraging people to engage in unhealthy practices, but should not try to prevent such advertisements.

Part of the discrepancy is that the government is justified in trying to prevent cigarette advertisements. (E) contradicts this part of the discrepancy by saying the government should not try to prevent the ads. Contradicting one part of the discrepancy doesn’t help explain it.

LSAT 116 – Section 2 – Question 15

LSAT 116 - Section 2 - Question 15

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 116 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel