Summary:
- Health official: Increasing the frequency of anti-smoking warnings may be ineffective.
-
First bold: Aside from annoying the majority who do not smoke,
it may weaken all anti-smoking messaging by leading people to believe that such warnings are needlessly stringent.
-
Second bold: Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that those who typically disregard anti-smoking messages will pay heed when the messages occur more frequently.
The main point is:
Increasing the frequency of anti-smoking warnings may be ineffective.Everything else supports this conclusion.
First boldface:
“Aside from annoying the majority who do not smoke, it may weaken all anti-smoking messaging...”
• Gives a reason why increasing the frequency may be ineffective.
• Supports the main conclusion.
•
Premise supporting the main conclusion.Second boldface:
“There is nothing to suggest that those who disregard warnings will pay heed when they occur more frequently.”
• Another reason why increased frequency won’t be effective.
•
Supports the main conclusion.So both boldface statements are premises that support the conclusion.
Analysing the answers:
(A) This is a conclusion for which support is provided... So, incorrect —
first bold is not a conclusion.(B) The first and second are premises. So this matches: both are supporting reasons.
(C) The first is the only explicit conclusion...Incorrect — first bold is not the conclusion.
(D) The first is the main conclusion...Not this as the main conclusion is that increased frequency may be ineffective.
(E) The first is a premise... the second is that conclusion. The second boldface is a premise, not a conclusion.
Final Answer: B. As the first is a premise that supports the argument’s only explicit conclusion; so is the second.