Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from

Let's examine each side of the "apparent conflict" in the passage, labeling each "side" as 1 or 2 for clarity:

• Conclusion 1: "Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so"
• Support for conclusion 1: "such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practices."

• Conclusion 2: "cigarette advertisements should remain legal"
• Support for conclusion 2: "advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices."

Our task is to find an answer choice that "most helps to resolve the apparent conflict between Kendrick's statements." So, we need to find a statement that explains how both conclusions can be valid at the same time. With that in mind, let's go through the answer choices:


This answer choice does not resolve the apparent conflict because it directly contradicts conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal"). (A) is out.


This answer choice does not resolve the central conflict between the two conclusions. It adds another element (the addictive nature of cigarettes) to support conclusion 1, but it does not explain why "cigarette advertisements should remain legal" in light of this further evidence. (B) is out.


This answer choice does not resolve the apparent conflict for a few reasons. First, we do not know whether "most advertisements," as stated in the answer choice, include cigarette advertisements. It is unclear whether this statement is arguing for cigarette advertisements to be legal, so we do not know if it contradicts conclusion 2. In addition, it does not support the conclusion that governments are justified in preventing cigarette advertisements because these ads encourage unhealthy behaviors. Instead, answer choice (C) seems to shift this responsibility to advertisers. (C) is out.


This one is interesting. The first part of the statement ("Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes") fits nicely with conclusion 1, that "governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so".

So far so good, but how does it stack up against conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal")? Answer choice (D) specifies that governments should use "financial disincentives rather than... legal prohibition" to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes.

So, answer choice (D) supports both sides of the apparent conflict. Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes, but should do so through financial disincentives rather than legal prohibition. (D) is our answer.


In stating that "governments... should not try to prevent [cigarette] advertisements," this answer choice directly contradicts conclusion 1 ("Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so"). The reasoning behind conclusion 1 is that "such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practices." From this, we know that cigarette advertisements in general encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices, so the "restrictions" proposed by answer choice (E) do not make any sense in the context of the passage. For these reasons, (E) is out, and (D) is our answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

I wrestled between C and D, but I think the answer is D.

Kendrick is saying that government is justified in preventing (cigarette) advertisements because it encourages unhealthy practices. However, because the same government allows fast food advertisements that also encourage unhealthy practices, they have no right to prevent cigarette advertisements. The voice of this passage is not really relating to advertisements and the legal right therein, but more about restricting the unhealthy practice of cigarettes.

---

A - Goes against his argument

B - This would work if Kendrick is arguing against allowing cigarette advertisements, but he's not.

C - Although it seems a little bit out of place, this answer "works" because it allows for Kendrick to resolve his conflict by postulating that all advertisements should be legal. The second part deflects responsibility from government, which also helps to "resolve the conflict". Yet, I feel that this answer does not hold true to the point of Kendrick's argument.

D - This is the other answer that is plausible. Although there is no mention of financial disincentives in the passage, it flows nicely with my interpretation of the theme. Governments will have no conflict between two advertisements that both encourage unhealthy practices - they will not legally halt advertising. However, they can through other methods carry on what Kendrick feels is a justifiable practice - inhibiting cigarette advertising.

E - I think restrictions and prevention can be argued to be similar - this doesn't resolve the conflict.

I'll take a crack at it ...

My summary of the conflict: Governments are justified when they attempt to prevent the advertisement of cigs because smoking cigs is an unhealthy habit. However, cig ads should be legal because advertisements for fatty foods are legal although eating fatty foods is an unhealthy practice.

So what helps to resolve the conflict? I determined that it would be something that would justify the government's actions to prevent the unhealthy habit of cigarette smoking or in other words distinguish cigs from fatty foods.

A) This doesn't add anything to the resolution of the conflict.

B) I like this answer. The government is justified because smoking cigs is an unhealthy practice and is addictive which perpetuates the unhealthy practice. Eating fatty foods, while an unhealthy practice, isn't an addictive practice. This differentiation justifies the government preventative measures and resolves the conflict.

C) Totally irrelevant since it does not resolve the conflict.

D) Again irrelevant since it does not resolve the conflict.

E) This answer is interesting because the government can place restrictions on cig ads but allow those ads to remain legal. My question would be then what about restrictions on ads for fatty foods? The conflict hasn't been resolved in my opinion.

I believe B is the answer.

Okay reading this again I think I will change my answer to D.

Here's the reason: financial disincentives allow cig ads to remain legal but allows governments to try to prevent cig advertising by making it financially difficult. This resolves the conflict.

OA is D.

The key is to realize of the wording in the passage.

Fact1: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so
Fact2: cigarette advertisements should remain legal

Option D explains this apparently contradiction.



This is perfectly valid in paradox questions. Anyway, you solved the question nicely. Congratulations + 1

I was inclined to choose either D or E. I dont see much difference between "restrictions" and "financial disincentives", cuz one can consider disincentives some kind of "restriction". Also prohibiting and restricting are not the same, as some argued here. So I think this question was controversial. Both D and E could've been considered correct at some extent.

i chose D should say im bit lucky with this

First thought E, later figured out that E is out of scope because it basically talks about restrictions whereas the question talks about prevention.

D is a better choice because it talks about prevention at the same time circumventing legality

I eliminated down to C and E and picked C actually while the answer is D.

I was a bit wary of financial incentives in D. It is a tough question.

right answer lies in the way one interpret the questions.

Whoever says Answer should be B, must be trying to resolve the conflict following statement :
Cigarette advertisements should remain legal since advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices.

However questions asks us to resolve conflict between following two statements
- Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so
- cigarette advertisements should remain legal

So essentially kendrick is trying to say that Government should to prevent the Cigarettes Ads by some other measures instead of banning them or making them illegal. Option D states this exactly.

For those who think option E is right answer may be mistaking that it contradicts the main statement by saying "Governments should not try to prevent such advertisements"
_________________

The correct answer is D.

It adequately resolves the paradox by accounting for the co-existence restrictions and legality of cigarette ads.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

it is D because the question focus on its meaning on the Legal issue so that D states something about legalilty. It is a little tricky as it that word showed up at the end of the answer

Previously, I also chose B, then realized my mistake.
I focused on the example of the fact rather than on the fact.
Key here is the facts:
1. Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so.
2. But cigarette advertisements should remain legal (Fatty food is the example of this fact)

Governments should try to prevent the advertisement(Justify fact 1) of cigarettes by means of financial disincentives rather than by legal prohibition(Justify fact 2).

So, the only choice that addressed both the facts is choice "D"

Learning: To resolve a paradox, focus on facts not on the examples of facts.

Bumping up for review. Tricky question.
_________________

GMATNinja nightblade354 How is the answer D ?

can someone help me out why the answer is D and not E.....???

GMATNinja

Can you please explain the solution...
Thanks

Thank you GMATNinja for such an awesome explanation.

Now I know why D is correct and B is incorrect. Loved the way you broke down the argument.

+1
_________________

Hello, how does "D" resolve the conflict? I was looking for a statement to explain why both are both, not a new idea to solve how to a goal. I know this is splitting hairs about I was looking for something like "B". Fatty food vs cigarettes etc. How is a tax the answer, the government could tax fatty food also well? What makes cigarettes different from fatty food, the answer is a tax to dissuade the consumer? The answer does not seem correct.