Mavisdu1017 wrote:
Hello expert,
Can you shed some light on this question? Especially on A and E. I read through the thread, but sorry I feel a little bit far fetched.
This is an official question and deserves your attention. Thanks
When I first read, I thought A was probably going to be right, but then I saw E.
It's very tricky! But here's my big advice: read *specifically*, don't assume anything that isn't explicit, and look out for subtle differences in similar ideas (particularly, look for things that NARROW THE SCOPE or BROADEN THE SCOPE of a topic).
The argument says we should ban ALL advertisements that promote smoking. Reread A and see if you can see how A NARROWS THE SCOPE of our discussion:
Quote:
(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health
A talks about advertising, and it talks about smoking... but what advertisements would it suggest banning? (Try to answer before reading on).
It would ban advertisements that *showed people smoking*.
What advertisements is the argument trying to ban? *ALL* smoking advertisements.
Do you see the shift?
Advertisers can (and very often do) advertise their product without showing people smoking. It can just be a picture of the cigarettes, or just a picture of the brand logo. The argument needs to ban those, too.
E says "Advertisements should promote only healthful products."
Well if cigarettes aren't healthy, and E is true, then definitely, NO smoking advertisements should be allowed, since ALL smoking advertisements promote an unhealthy product.
thanks for your response sir. Yes I have known A narrows the scope, but what confused me is: whether such a choice can NOT strengthen the argument? although it narrows some scope.
Pls help. Thank you.