PrepTest 141, Section 2, Question 9
Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- APeople who smoke(14 more words not shown)
- BBroadcast media tend(11 more words not shown)
- CRestrictions on tobacco(18 more words not shown)
- DMost people who(10 more words not shown)
- EPeople who are(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What else changed in those countries?
Maybe schools began teaching students more about the harms of smoking. Maybe restrictions on advertisements were part of a much larger campaign against tobacco. Either possibility could help explain why smoking fell without giving all the credit to reduced advertising.
The research describes a drop in smoking overall, especially among first-time smokers, in countries with strict advertising restrictions. That fits the columnist's view that advertising influences smoking. But it also fits a story in which a broader change reduces smoking and encourages the restrictions. The association alone doesn't separate those explanations.
What we’re looking for
To weaken the reasoning, I'd look for evidence of that other force: something that could account for both less smoking and the decision to restrict advertisements.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns existing smokers quitting, which is only one way the number of smokers can fall. Fewer people starting could still explain much of the decline, and the evidence especially emphasizes first-time smokers. A doesn't remove the possibility that advertising has an important effect on starting to smoke.
- B
Different restrictions on television and print advertisements don't explain the decline in smoking or give an alternative cause. We would still need to know whether the restrictions that were imposed affected people's behavior. The relative strictness of the two media's rules doesn't settle that.
- CCorrect
A widespread and growing negative attitude toward tobacco already exists where the restrictions are imposed. That gives us the other force we were looking for. People may be less willing to smoke because of this changing attitude, and the same attitude may help bring about advertising restrictions. The decline therefore doesn't isolate the effect of advertising. C weakens that inference without proving that advertisements have no effect.
- D
A habit lasting for life doesn't show that advertising had no role in starting it. The columnist's evidence includes a decline in first-time smokers. Even if most adolescent smokers continue, advertising restrictions could still affect how many people begin.
- E
This describes people who largely ignore tobacco advertising and says they tend to ignore other advertising too. It doesn't tell us how large that group is or what happens among people who are influenced by advertisements. It leaves the cause of the observed national declines unexplained.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.