Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems [#permalink]
06 Apr 2007, 01:54
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically well-established fact. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, however, it is not necessary to deny this fact in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible for the poor health of smokers. After all, excessive consumption of candy undeniably leads to such health problems as tooth decay, but no one seriously believes that candy eaters who get cavities should be able to sue candy manufacturers.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and the health problems suffered by smokers
(B) depends on the obviously false assumption that everyone who gets cavities does so only as a result of eating too much candy
(C) leaves undefined such critical qualifying terms as â€œexcessiveâ€
Also I think a flaw in the argument has to be from the info given...I feel the nature of the threats posed is outside the scope...Isn't it...Am I missing something??
What is the argument?
You can continue to keep accepting that tobacoo is harmful and yet not hold the tobacco companies morally/legally responsible
IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS
You don't consider suing candy companies even though it is undeniably true that candies cause harmful cavities in the teeth.
What do you think is the most appropriate criticism of the above logic? E expresses it clearly by saying you can't compare the effects of tobacco with those of candy - one causes cancer and stuff like that - the other causes only mouth cavities. The two cannot be logically compared.
Well, if you've identified the flaw in the reasoning as I have described in my earlier post you won't even consider C.
On lack of clarity in the use of long term and excessive - I don't think we need a scientific definition of these terms to evaluate the flaw in the argument - which is actually on a more fundamental level - (as identified in E) - which is that comparing the harmful effects of smoking with those of eating candies itself is flawed due to the vast differences in their respective effects.
The point is that these differences would still exist regardless of however clearly you define "excessive" and "long term"