Self-study
Support One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising campaign in local newspapers, which it financed by imposing a tax on cigarettes of 20 cents per pack. ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███ ██ ███████ ████████ █ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ███████████
Argument Breakdown: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author discusses the effects of a recent antismoking advertising campaign, which was funded by an extra 20 cent tax on cigarettes. The author's conclusion is a hypothesis that the content of the antismoking ads had an effect. This hypothesis seems to explain the phenomenon of a 3% drop in smoking one year after the ad campaign.
One big issue for the author, though, is that there's a pretty obvious alternative explanation for the decrease in smoking. The advertising campaign was financed by a new tax on cigarettes, so doesn't it seem like the increase in price might have been the real reason people stopped smoking?
Objective: Strengthen
To strengthen the argument, we need to deny this alternative explanation that people really stopped smoking because of the extra cost. That will leave the content of the ads as a more convincing hypothesis. We're looking for an answer choice that says the cost increase was neutralized somehow, so people didn't actually have to pay more. Alternatively, the correct answer could explain that even though the cost increased, people didn't respond to the higher cost by decreasing their cigarette-purchasing habits.
12.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████
a
Residents of the ████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ██ █████ ███████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ███████
The argument is only concerned with smoking, so whether or not people have replaced cigarettes with other tobacco products doesn't affect the argument. (A) would be a better answer if the argument was about decreased tobacco use in general.
b
A substantial number ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████
Like (A), (B) doesn't address the specific argument being made. The argument is about a decrease in the number of smokers, so whether or not existing smokers smoke less doesn't have any impact. And we already know there was a decrease; what we need to affirm is the hypothesized cause, not the phenomenon itself.
To avoid trap answers like (B), it's important to read for detail and be precise in understanding the stimulus. The number of people who smoke and how many cigarettes people smoke are extremely closely related, but still different concepts.
c
Admissions to the █████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████
The argument already tells us there was a decrease in the number of people who smoke. Our goal is showing why that happened, not affirming that fewer people smoke now. A decrease in respiratory conditions doesn't help with that.
d
Merchants in the ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████ ███ █████
In other words, there was no price increase despite the extra tax used to fund the ad campaign. (D) eliminates the alternative explanation for why people stopped smoking. This in turn strengthens the argument by leaving it as the last hypothesis standing.
e
Smokers in the ████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████████
(E) does the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. If smokers have lower incomes, then they're more likely to be price-sensitive. This weakens the argument by making the alternative explanation of a higher cost reducing smoking more convincing.