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.
_________________