PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 15
Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AAny advertisement that(23 more words not shown)
- BThe advertisement of(18 more words not shown)
- CMost advertisements should(22 more words not shown)
- DGovernments should try(16 more words not shown)
- EGovernments should place(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If encouraging something unhealthy justifies stopping its advertisements, wouldn't that reasoning apply to fatty food too? An ad for a huge burger could encourage an unhealthy choice just as a cigarette ad could.
Kendrick makes that comparison, but uses it to argue that cigarette ads should remain legal because fatty-food ads are legal. My first reaction is to question whether the two products are similar enough. Might their risks differ in a way that matters? That's a possible objection to the comparison.
But the question asks us to resolve an apparent conflict within Kendrick's statements. So shift attention: Kendrick supports governments trying to prevent cigarette advertising, yet says those advertisements should remain legal. How can both positions fit together?
What we’re looking for
My first thought is that calling a step justified might not mean we should actually take that step. But we still need an explanation that lets Kendrick support prevention while keeping the ads legal. Let's look for a way to hold both positions, rather than attack the analogy.
Working the answers
- A
Making every advertisement that encourages unhealthy behavior illegal contradicts Kendrick's view that cigarette ads should remain legal. This adopts the broad ban we initially wondered about instead of explaining how Kendrick can hold both stated positions.
- B
The difference in addiction could be a reason to treat the two products differently. That addresses my initial objection to the analogy, but it doesn't reconcile Kendrick's actual positions. It distinguishes preventing cigarette ads from allowing food ads without explaining how cigarette ads can remain legal while governments try to prevent them.
- C
This gives advertisers a moral responsibility and says most ads should be legal. Neither statement explains what the government can do about cigarette advertisements. General legality and a duty on advertisers don't resolve the particular combination of government prevention and continued legality.
- DCorrect
The government can try to prevent the ads without legally banning them. Financial disincentives offer a different method. For example, making cigarette advertising more expensive could encourage companies to stop advertising while leaving them legally free to continue.
Now both claims can stand: the government is justified in trying to prevent the advertising, and the advertising remains legal. D is about discouraging the advertisements themselves, not merely discouraging cigarette use. The key discovery is the difference between the government's goal and the method it uses.
- E
This allows restrictions, but expressly says the government should not try to prevent the advertisements. That conflicts with Kendrick's first position, which supports such prevention efforts. The problem isn't that restrictions could never help prevent advertising. It's that E rejects the very goal we're trying to reconcile with continued legality.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.