Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from

Let's examine each side of the "apparent conflict" in the passage, labeling each "side" as 1 or 2 for clarity:

• Conclusion 1: "Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so"
• Support for conclusion 1: "such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practices."

• Conclusion 2: "cigarette advertisements should remain legal"
• Support for conclusion 2: "advertisements for fatty foods are legal, even though those advertisements also encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices."

Our task is to find an answer choice that "most helps to resolve the apparent conflict between Kendrick's statements." So, we need to find a statement that explains how both conclusions can be valid at the same time. With that in mind, let's go through the answer choices:


This answer choice does not resolve the apparent conflict because it directly contradicts conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal"). (A) is out.


This answer choice does not resolve the central conflict between the two conclusions. It adds another element (the addictive nature of cigarettes) to support conclusion 1, but it does not explain why "cigarette advertisements should remain legal" in light of this further evidence. (B) is out.


This answer choice does not resolve the apparent conflict for a few reasons. First, we do not know whether "most advertisements," as stated in the answer choice, include cigarette advertisements. It is unclear whether this statement is arguing for cigarette advertisements to be legal, so we do not know if it contradicts conclusion 2. In addition, it does not support the conclusion that governments are justified in preventing cigarette advertisements because these ads encourage unhealthy behaviors. Instead, answer choice (C) seems to shift this responsibility to advertisers. (C) is out.


This one is interesting. The first part of the statement ("Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes") fits nicely with conclusion 1, that "governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so".

So far so good, but how does it stack up against conclusion 2 ("cigarette advertisements should remain legal")? Answer choice (D) specifies that governments should use "financial disincentives rather than... legal prohibition" to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes.

So, answer choice (D) supports both sides of the apparent conflict. Governments should try to prevent the advertisement of cigarettes, but should do so through financial disincentives rather than legal prohibition. (D) is our answer.


In stating that "governments... should not try to prevent [cigarette] advertisements," this answer choice directly contradicts conclusion 1 ("Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so"). The reasoning behind conclusion 1 is that "such advertisements encourage people to engage in an unhealthy practices." From this, we know that cigarette advertisements in general encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices, so the "restrictions" proposed by answer choice (E) do not make any sense in the context of the passage. For these reasons, (E) is out, and (D) is our answer.

I hope that helps!