Some governments have tried to make alcohol and
tobacco less attractive to consumers by regulating
what can be shown in advertisements for these prod-
ucts, rather than by banning advertising of them
altogether. However, the need to obey the letter of
these restrictions has actually stimulated advertisers
to create advertisements that are more inventive and
humorous than they were prior to the restrictions'
introduction.

which of the following, if true, would, in conjunc-
tion with the statements above, best support the
conclusion that the government policy described
above fails to achieve its objective?
(A) Because of the revenues gained from the sale of
alcohol and tobacco, governments have no
real interest in making these products less
attractive to consumers.
(B) Advertisers tend to create inventive and humor-
ous advertisements only if they have some
particular reason to do so.
(C) Banning advertising of alcohol and tobacco is a
particularly effective way of making these
products less attractive to consumers.
(D) With the policy in place, advertisements for
alcohol and tobacco have become far more
inventive and humorous than advertisements
for other kinds of products.
(E) The more inventive an advertisement is, the more
attractive it makes the advertised product appear.

The correct answer is E, but I don't know why my answer, D, is wrong?

Hi praetorian
Thank your response...........
But, I'm sorry that I can't understand what you mean for this question?
I'm non-native English...........
So, I maybe need an explanation in simple word.
Sorry!! if you have willing to do so again.............

Anyway...........thank you a lot.............

Chih-Hao

1. Whats the argument ?

Government restrictions on the advertisements did not have the intended impact. advertisers created more inventive and humorous Advertisments.

2. We need something that will support the argument.

D says the advertisments have become more humorous than the other advertisments. But that does not support the argument.

3. Why?

It does not matter if the advertisments are more humorous , inventive than others..Government regulations were meant to reduce the "impact" of these advertisments on the audiences.

Remember, we have to stay " within " the boundaries of the argument.
so we cannot assume that "more inventive and humorus" means "more attractive" or " more sales"

E directly supports the argument...it says the more inventive the Advertisements are , the more attractive it makes the advertised product appear. Government regulations were intended to prevent that.