Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)
The stimulus argues that since cigarette smoking is a health hazard, governments should ban cigarette ads.
The argument is based on the idea that governments should not permit the promotion of harmful behavior. Since you are asked to identify a supporting principle, you should select a choice that broadly supports the idea that governments should not allow the promotion of harmful behavior.
Answer choice (A): This choice is helpful, because it would give the government grounds for eliminating a particular kind of cigarette ad. However, camels might still be allowed to smoke, and cigarettes could still be otherwise promoted in ads. This choice would not provide grounds for eliminating cigarette ads in general.
Answer choice (B): The stimulus does not suggest that cigarette ads claim that cigarettes are healthful. This principle, in any case, might permit cigarette ads as long as they acknowledged cigarettes are not healthy, but you are supposed to choose the response that allows governments to ban cigarette ads.
Answer choice (C): This choice merely demands that cigarette ads disclose the health risks entailed by smoking, but you are supposed to choose the response that bans cigarette ads.
Answer choice (D): This choice concerns products rather than advertisements. The argument was not that cigarettes should be banned; the argument was that cigarette ads should be banned.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct choice. If advertisements should promote only healthy products, this provides grounds for governments to ban any ad that promotes cigarettes, so this principle provides the most support for the stimulus.
#6 - Cigarette smoking has been shown to be a health hazard
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Can we also say for E:
Ad--> healthy. CP: Not healthy --> No add
Stimulus : not healthy --> no add; therefore Es CP matches the stimulus?
Yes, that's right. Nice work!
I answered A and I now understand why it's wrong...because it focuses on people being depicted in the ads, rather than what's being advertised. BUT I still take issue with Answer E. I would think that a better answer would be "Advertisements should not promote health hazards." When I read E, I think to myself, "Well, what about health-neutral products? Advertisements can't only promote things that are good for us (i.e. 'healthful')." That was why I originally eliminated E and went with A.
If you don't mind me paraphrasing you, lsat_novice, what you're saying is that answer E went too far, right? That is, we only needed to say that we shouldn't allow advertising of unhealthy products, and E went beyond that to also ban advertising for health-neutral products. You're right about that, but that doesn't make the answer wrong! A strengthen or justify answer can go beyond what is needed, as long as it does the job we've asked of it, which is to strengthen or justify the conclusion.
Imagine an answer that said "Governments should ban all advertising other than television commercials for broccoli." Wouldn't that, if true, support the claim that ads promoting smoking should be banned? Along with ads for bacon, socks, toothpaste, cars, treadmills, and sham-wows, etc.
Don't worry about an answer going too far when being asked to strengthen, justify, or weaken a conclusion, unless the stem asked you to pick an answer that was required to strengthen, justify, weaken, etc. We've seen a few of those over the years, and they can be a little tricky, especially because one answer is likely to go further than required while the correct answer goes just far enough. That's not the case here, though, so it's okay to go overboard.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
5 posts • Page 1 of 1