Virtually all health experts agree that second-hand smoke poses a seri

ARGUMENT
[prem] Experts agree that second-hand smk poses serious health risk;
[prem] A new study linked second-hand smking to a shorter life span;
[con] State reps want to ban smking in public to promote quality of life and increase life span;
[asum] Smkers won't cause more problems by smoking elsewhere.

(A) irrelevant;
(B) irrelevant;
(C) doesn't support the fact that by banning public smoking, reps will promote life;
(E) irrelevant;

Ans (D) this support, since there was a drop in health risks by promoting a similar plan.

Virtually all health experts agree that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk. After the publication of yet another research paper explicating the link between exposure to second-hand smoke and a shorter life span, some members of the State House of Representatives proposed a ban on smoking in most public places in an attempt to promote quality of life and length of lifespan.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most support for the actions of the State Representatives?

Something that has concrete results about the link between exposure to second-hand smoke and a shorter life span(inverse relation) would strengthen representative's action. So that would lead to either quality of life or length of lifespan. Only D does that since drop in lung - cancer improves quality of life.

(A) The amount of damaging chemicals and fumes released into the air by cigarette smoke is far less than the amount released from automobiles, especially from older models. - WRONG. Goes in opposite direction.

(B) Banning smoking in most public places will not considerably reduce the percent of the population in the state in question that smokes. - WRONG. Goes in opposite direction.

(C) The state whose legislators are proposing the tough smoking legislation has a relatively high percent of its population that smoke. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) Another state that enacted a similar law a decade ago saw a statistically significant drop in lung-cancer rates among non-smokers. - CORRECT.

(E) A nearby state up-wind has the highest number of smokers in the country. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Answer D.

Option D is the right answer.

This argument presents a cause and effect structure.

Premise: Virtually all health experts agree that second-hand smoke poses a serious health risk.
Premise 2: The publication of yet another research paper explicates the link between exposure to second-hand smoke and a shorter life span.
Conclusion: Some members of the State House of Representatives proposed a ban on smoking in most public places in an attempt to promote quality of life and length of lifespan.

Clearly we can identify the cause in the argument as: Exposure to second-hand smoke.
Effects: Shorter life span.

One way to strengthen a cause and effect argument is to prove that when the cause does not exist, then the effect does not occur. This implies that when we eliminate second-hand smoke through a legislature, there is evidence that suggests that there is an increase in life expectancy or there is an evidence that something that could potentially shorten lives is eliminated.

Option D states that another State that enacted a similar law a decade ago saw a statistically significant drop in lung-cancer rates among non-smokers. This proves that in the absence of second-hand smoke, there is evidence that sections of the populace within a State are less prone to lung cancer, a situation that will result in lesser deaths due to lung cancer, hence option D strengthens the argument above.

The stimulus states that a statistical data was selected and was found that after publication of yet another research that there was a link between people who inhale second hand smoke and life span. So the members of state legislation want to ban smoking in public areas to increase the life span of non smokers.

We need to strengthen the state legislatives decision

IMO D a similar strategy has worked in neighborhood so should work here as well

Posted from my mobile device

(D) Another state that enacted a similar law a decade ago saw a statistically significant drop in lung-cancer rates among non-smokers...................passing a similar law reduced cancer rates supports the legislators' case that banning smoking in many places will promote length of lifespan.

OA:D

OFFICIAL EPLXANTION

The State Representatives' argument for banning smoking is based upon scientific research and the presence of a correlation between second-hand smoke and life expectancy. However, it could be strengthened if data existed to show that other regions that enacted tough anti-smoking reform experienced longer life spans. In other words, although we know there is a relationship between second-hand smoke and life expectancy, we do not know that enacting tough anti-smoking reform will influence second-hand smoke levels and thereby influence life expectancy.

A. The legislators' argument is about protecting people from second-hand smoke, not about taking one action versus another (i.e., the legislators are not comparing sources of toxin, but rather attempting to prevent one source from entering the air).

B. The question at hand does not pertain to the percent of the population that smokes but the ability of the law to extend life expectancy. This answer fails to make a connection between the proposed law and extending life expectancy.

C. Although the percent of the state population that smokes will affect the extent of the impact made by the law, it does not support the merits of the law in and of itself. In other words, the argument is not based upon the number or percent of the population that smokes (and by corollary the number and percent of the population affected by second-hand smoke). Rather, the argument is based upon a connection between removing second-hand smoke inhalation via legislation and lengthening life span. This answer provides no direct evidence to strengthen the link between removing second-hand smoke via legislation and lengthening lifespan.

D. The evidence that passing a similar law reduced cancer rates supports the legislators' case that banning smoking in many places will promote "length of lifespan" (i.e., with people dying of cancer less, they live longer).

E. The number of smokers in a nearby state does not influence whether banning second-hand smoke in the state in question will affect life expectancy. The large number of smokers up-stream will hurt air quality and length of life downstream (weakling the legislators' argument if it effected it at all). Fundamentally, this answer is wrong because it fails to strengthen the connection between removing second-hand smoke via legislation and lengthening life-expectancy.