That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact. ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ █████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████████
The stimulus starts by commenting on a phenomenon: long-term cigarette smoking leads to health problems like lung disease and cancer, and this is a "scientifically well-established fact." However, the stimulus then argues against a belief many people apparently hold, stating that one doesn't have to deny this fact to reject the idea that tobacco companies should be held responsible for smokers' health problems. In other words, you can agree that this fact is true and still think that tobacco companies shouldn't be held responsible.
The author backs up this claim with an analogy: it is "undeniable" that eating too much candy can cause health problems like tooth decay, but no one thinks candy eaters should be able to sue candy companies over those health problems.
The argument rests on an analogy between eating candy and smoking. Any analogy presupposes that the things being compared are actually comparable — in other words, that there are no relevant differences between the two things that would undermine the analogy.
But in this case, even though eating too much candy and smoking cigarettes long-term both lead to health problems, it seems like there could be some relevant differences between the two activities and the health problems they cause. For instance, eating candy might not be as addictive as smoking cigarettes, and the health problems from eating candy — like the "cavities" the stimulus mentions — might be less serious than health problems from smoking.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
fails to establish ████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████
Irrelevant. Remember that on the LSAT, we can take the statements in premises as established, unless the stimulus itself gives us some reason to doubt them. So when the author states that it is "undeniable" that excessive candy eating causes tooth decay, we can take that as a given, without demanding explicit references to science.
depends on the █████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █████
Incorrect. The author never claims that everyone with cavities must have gotten them from eating too much candy. His focus in the analogy is on "candy eaters with cavities," not everyone with cavities.
leaves undefined such ████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████████████ ███ ███████████████
It's true that these terms could be defined more specifically, but this argument doesn't require that. If the author said "tobacco companies should be held liable for health problems caused by a certain period or threshold of long-term smoking, just like candy companies should be held liable for tooth decay caused by a certain threshold amount of excessive candy eating", then the specific meaning of each term would be more relevant.
As it stands, though, the ideas of "excessive" and "long-term" aren't actually what is being compared in the analogy. What's more relevant is the general pattern of both behaviors potentially causing health problems.
attributes certain beliefs ██ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ███████
Irrelevant. The author doesn't need to state the identity of these people to interact with their argument.
fails to address ███ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████
This is correct, though it might seem unexpected. This answer choice focuses on a difference that effectively undermines the author's analogy, but might not be as obvious on an initial read of the stimulus: specifically, the different magnitude of the harm caused by eating candy versus smoking, and how this might affect what people believe about legitimate actions based on such harm.
Just because "no one seriously believes" you should be able to sue candy companies for cavities, it doesn't follow that one cannot seriously believe a tobacco company should be sued for cancer. If candy could also be linked to cancer instead of a comparatively less harmful problem like tooth decay, perhaps people would think it was legitimate to sue candy companies. Thus, the different scale of the health problems undermines the analogy the author uses as support.
In terms of strategy, even if you didn't pre-phrase this particular answer choice, the fact that it does attempt to point out a difference between the things being compared in the stimulus should make you slow down and ask whether this difference is actually relevant to the stimulus. In this case, and unlike A (where the difference isn't relevant), this answer choice successfully points out a flaw in the analogy.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.