PT141.S2.Q9 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The columnist hypothesizes that advertising indeed has an effect on smoking habits, contrary to what tobacco companies claim. The evidence is that in countries with the most tobacco advertising restrictions, research shows the greatest reduction in both the number of people who smoke and the number of first-time smokers.

The author's causal conclusion (that advertising affects smoking) is based on a correlation between advertising restrictions and smoking rates. To weaken, we could find an alternative cause that would better explain the observed correlation. We could also weaken the correlation, for example by showing that countries which repeal their restrictive laws see no increase in smoking.

In claiming that countries with stringent advertising laws see a decline in smoking, the author specifies that the decline is most prominent among first-time smokers. Even if current smokers usually don’t quit, limiting advertising still appears to deter would-be smokers, leaving the argument intact.

We’re trying to weaken the author's claimed causal relationship between advertising laws and smoking rates, generally. Whether the degree of limitations can vary between media types doesn't affect that broader relationship, so this isn't useful.

This adds a third factor to the equation, one that affects both smoking rates and advertising laws. Now it looks like negative attitudes towards tobacco use are actually what cause a decline in smoking rates, as well as leading to stricter laws. By providing an alternative explanation for the correlation, this undermines the causal argument.

This isn't strong enough to eliminate the potential impact of advertising laws, so it doesn't weaken. If 30 percent of smokers quit who otherwise wouldn't have, that's still significant, even if it's not "most." This also doesn't account for deterring first-time smokers.

We have no idea how many people are unaffected by tobacco advertising, and we're not concerned with advertising in general. This could be a weakener if almost all people were unaffected by tobacco advertising, but we don’t have that information.

Question

86% of people who answer get this correct

This is a moderately difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 134

144

75% 153

Question Stem Tags

Weaken

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

11%

156

153

86%

164

152

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 141 - Section 2 - Question 9

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action