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:
Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will not [#permalink]
01 Apr 2004, 06:11
100% (01:04) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will not reduce
the number of young people who smoke. They know that cigarettes exist
and they know how to get them. They do not need the advertisements to
supply that information.
The above argument would be most weakened if which of the following
(A) Seeing or hearing an advertisement for a product tends to
increase people's desire for that product.
(B) Banning cigarette advertisements in the mass media will cause an
increase in advertisements in places where cigarettes are sold.
(C) Advertisements in the mass media have been an exceedingly large
part of the expenditures of the tobacco companies.
(D) Those who oppose cigarette use have advertised against it in the
mass media ever since cigarettes were found to be harmful.
(E) Older people tend to be less influenced by mass-media
advertisements than younger people tend to be.
If older people tend to be less influenced by mass-media advertisements than younger people tend to be, then it means that in the absence of advertisements, some young people will not be influenced and so will not smoke which will reduce the number of young people who smoke.
I believe A is better than E for the following reason.
The argument is saying that advertisements provide redundant information because young people already know about the product. A says that may be true but advertisements besides providing information also create interest in the products advertised. If advertisements are stopped then factor creating interest is gottten rid of.