Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore

This is a tough one.

There is one premise: "Cigarettes are bad for health."

And the conclusion: "Therefore, government should ban all ads that promote cigarettes".

We now need to find one more premise that would most logically complete the argument.

A is a good option, but there are at least 2 flaws with it:

1. It's possible to make an ad promoting cigarette smoking without showing any people smoking. For example, a famous actor says into the camera: "Smoke cigarettes. They are amazing."
2. It's possible to make an ad promoting a healthy product (e.g. broccoli) with people doing something dangerous, as a negative example. For instance, you show a person eating 100 doughnuts per day and then say: "Don't be like that person. Eat broccoli."

E doesn't have any flaws. Once we put it into the argument, the whole thing works beautifully: "Cigarettes are bad for health. Ads must promote only healthy things. Therefore, we should ban all ads promoting cigarettes."

Had to think between A and E for a second there.

This is a tough one. Any explanation for A&E?

Posted from my mobile device

I like this question.

A is clearly wrong because content of the advertisement is irrelevant here...
Rest are easy I presume.

(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health
Option A is incorrect, as it is valid for ads that SHOW people DOING things that endanger their health.
A cigarette company could advertise its cigarettes WITHOUT showing people who are smoking. In such case, the author's conclusion will not hold true.

Option E, on the other hand, is airtight!
(E) Advertisements should promote only healthful products
As "cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard" - this option is correct

Lol these are just such arbitrary explanations. Consensus here is that A should be gone because it doesn’t have to show people smoking. E says ads should only show healthful products. Lol so financial products and services that have nothing to do with health can’t be advertised? Lol this is all just gibberish.

Posted from my mobile device

sislam04, I see your point but A is worse than E for the reasons cited by other members. If E is true, you simply cannot show an advertisement that promotes smoking. If A is true, you could still show advertisements that promote smoking. Also, I kind of agree with your point about advertisements related to health neutral products, but we have to pick the best out of the 5.

straight A and E

But A has: show people doing things - which is not something that is addressed in the argument.
Hence, E.

Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard; therefore, government should ban all advertisements that promote smoking.

Which one of the following principles, if established, most strongly supports the argument?

(A) Advertisements should not be allowed to show people doing things that endanger their health
(E) Advertisements should promote only healthful products


Cigarette smoking -> health hazard - > ban advertisements that promote smoking.


A can be eliminated as "people doing things that endanger their health" or endangering health is different from health hazard.

A Redbull energy add wherein a Dare Devil is doing stunts in bike is an act where the person is endangering his health but it is not health Hazard.


The question's reasoning structure is that smoking is health hazard hence advertisement should be banned hence A can be eliminated.
_________________

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:



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.
_________________

ReedArnoldMPREP 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.

So a good exercise is to make yourself actually write out why you think an answer does what you think it does. Why do you think 'banning advertisements that show people doing something unhealthy' strengthens that 'All smoking advertisements should be banned.'
_________________

ReedArnoldMPREP hi sir, this is what I think: I just thought it as a math issue - assume them as 2 sets (option A=set A, while the conclusion=set B), and set A is a subset of set B, as option A narrows some scope of the conclusion. So I think a subset (set A) can support PART of set B (but still support), though can not support the whole set B. Maybe I think too much...

Banning a part does not strengthen banning the whole. I say 'we shouldn't let anyone draw rectangles anymore,' it doesn't strengthen that argument to say 'no one should draw squares.'
_________________

Got you and I will remember. Much thanks for your response and patient explanation.