Q15 - Kendrick: Governments that try

[itzakadoozie412]

Can I get an explanation of why the correct answer here is D and not E? I dont understand how financial incentives play a role in resolving the apparent conflict. Is it because its hinting at an alternative to legal prohibition?
This sounded like a principle question more than an explain the result question to me at first.

Thanks in advance!

[mturner]

Looking at the answer for the past 10 minutes, I guess with answer D, it supports the justification of governments who want to prevent cigarette advertisements, but also supports the legality of those same advertisements.

Am I on the right path? Or did I just come up with a lame justification only because I knew the right answer???

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great work mturner!

We need to reconcile two claims:

1. Governments are justified in preventing the advertisements of cigarettes.
2. Cigarette advertisements should remain legal.

(A) violates the second claim.
(B) supports the first claim, but neglects the second.
(C) supports the second claim, but neglects the first.
(D) supports both claims.
(E) violates the first claim.

To quickly and efficiently answer this question you need to clear through the clutter of the stimulus and find the claims to be reconciled. Focus intently on the key language in the answer choices to see their affect on the claims and you should be able to see the positions above for each of the answer choices.

Does that answer your question?

[bramon.elizabeth]

Can you show how (E) violates the first sentence? I pictured restrictions as rules (like "must include surgeon general's warning"), not as limitations on where and how often the ads occur. If restrictions actually refer to the latter, and exclude the former possibility, it would make sense to throw (E) out..

[shodges]

Can you show how (E) violates the first sentence? I pictured restrictions as rules (like "must include surgeon general's warning"), not as limitations on where and how often the ads occur. If restrictions actually refer to the latter, and exclude the former possibility, it would make sense to throw (E) out..

I think that, like most parts of the LSAT, you should take it literally. The premise says

"Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so"

the incorrect part of (E) says

" [governments] should not try to prevent such [cigarette] advertisements"

They seem to be in direct conflict, which is what I think the above user meant.

[soyeonjeon]

I debated between C and D and ended up choosing C.
But I think that C implicitly supports both points.
Since while it is legal for advertisers to make cigarette ads, they are morally responsible for the encouraging people to engage in unhealthy practices, which allows that the government is justified in preventing the unhealthy ads. The only reason I would find for C be wrong would be "most" since cigar ads are not necessarily included in "most."
D, on the other hand, fails to justify the second point, namely that cigarette advertisement should remain legal. It only states, "govt should prevent...rather than by legal prohibition."

Doesn't D only implicitly touch on the second point, like C implicitly touches on the first point, whereon C and D both likely are answers?

some please help me and correct me if I have wrong assumptions.

Help would be appreciated!
Thanks!

[ttunden]

I was stuck between C and D however I was lucky and chose D.

The problem with answer choice C is that it does an excellent job explaining why government should not make cigarette ads illegal but it does not say anything about government preventing cigarettes from being advertised. Also, as stated earlier, the most is quite ambiguous. You don't know if cigarette advertising is included in the "most." I didn't like the morally responsible part either.

What I liked most about answer choice D is that it said governments should try to prevent the ads by financial disincentive rather than legal prohibition. This can explain how the government prevents cigarette advertisements and also explains why it is still legal. This answer choice thus resolves the paradox.

[yangyi.sloan]

Hi, staring at this question for 10 minutes I still couldn't get the point. I understand that speaker made two claims: first ads of cigarettes are justified to be banned, and second cigarette ads should stay legal. But what is the conflict??? You have to make it illegal to ban it? Also for this type of question, we just take all the claims made by the speaker for granted instead of question the argument per se? Anyone could help me here? Thanks!!

[yangyi.sloan]

By painfully rereading this question again it finally dawned on me that the speaker was trying to say that he thinks the gov should ban cigarettes ads while making this type of ad legal, and the question actually is how gov can manage to do that. But I still think the way the question phrased is strange. When asked how to resolve an apparent conflict, it's natural for me to think that the speaker could have confused some core concepts or made other logical mistakes, but not like to take every claims made by the speaker as true and work out a solution based on that. And this mentality led me to choose B. Anyone can explain why we can't think this way here?? Thanks!

[cecile_lv]

By painfully rereading this question again it finally dawned on me that the speaker was trying to say that he thinks the gov should ban cigarettes ads while making this type of ad legal, and the question actually is how gov can manage to do that. But I still think the way the question phrased is strange. When asked how to resolve an apparent conflict, it's natural for me to think that the speaker could have confused some core concepts or made other logical mistakes, but not like to take every claims made by the speaker as true and work out a solution based on that. And this mentality led me to choose B. Anyone can explain why we can't think this way here?? Thanks!

Hey Yangyi,
I totally understand your confusion because I picked B as well. And I actually get more confused after reading through the above solutions (I don't mean to impolite to them ) But, here is my understanding to solve this question.
I found the conflict is actually stimulated of the comparison, that is while fatty food advertisement is still legal although it encourage people to engage in unhealthy practices, there is no reason the govt should ban the Cigarettes solely on the base that it encourages the unhealthy practices. This is the main paradox in the whole argument.
For the correct answer D, it gives the solution that suggests the govt can maintain the cigarettes adv legally but by preventing the financial disincentives. This solution will help solve the conflict while not hurt the fact that the fatty foods adv is legally enacted. In other words, this answer actually address the differences between the "cigar" and "fatty food" while remaining the similarity between them. Let's say, ok, I will keep 'cigar' legally (otherwise someone would dispute me of why keep 'fatty' legally but disapprove the 'cigar" when they both encourage the unhealthy practices), but prevent 'cigar' in another way (which is not inferred from the 'fatty' side).
And for B, I though another way to challenge it. Even you said that fatty foods are not addictive, so what? Is there any relationship between addictive and unhealthy practice that can be seen from the statement? If cigar makes people addictive to it, does that equal to encourage people to engage unhealthy practices? I can't get any specific answer by viewing the stimulus.
Hope my explanation can give you some ideas.

[christine.defenbaugh]

By painfully rereading this question again it finally dawned on me that the speaker was trying to say that he thinks the gov should ban cigarettes ads while making this type of ad legal, and the question actually is how gov can manage to do that. But I still think the way the question phrased is strange. When asked how to resolve an apparent conflict, it's natural for me to think that the speaker could have confused some core concepts or made other logical mistakes, but not like to take every claims made by the speaker as true and work out a solution based on that. And this mentality led me to choose B. Anyone can explain why we can't think this way here?? Thanks!

Thanks for posting, yangyi.sloan!

I think two major things are happening here that are causing your confusion: a misunderstand of your task, and a lack of precision about the wording in the stimulus.

YOUR TASK: RESOLVE THE APPARENT CONFLIT

When you face a 'resolve the apparent conflict' question (or 'explain the discrepancy', or 'resolve the apparent paradox'), you are NOT looking for logical mistakes that the author made. That's your task for a FLAW question, and that's a completely difference process.

For paradox questions, you must accept the information in the stimulus, and look for some additional piece of information that resolves what appears to be the conflict between them. So, the first step is to identify the two things that appear to be in conflict - basically, zero in on the two pieces that look like they contradict each other!


PRECISION: What are the two items, and how do they seem to conflict?

You are playing too loosely with the language for this step: you said above that the gov't "should ban cigarette ads while making this type of ad legal", but that's not what the stimulus is actually saying. To ban something is to make it illegal, so this would be an ACTUAL conflict, not an apparent one. The stimulus does not say "ban" it says" try to prevent", which is a very different thing. Also, the stimulus does not say the gov't should "make the ad legal", but rather that those ads "should remain legal" - meaning, the gov't should NOT make them ILLEGAL.

With a more careful look at the language, the two items that look really weird side by side are this:

1) It's totally okay for gov't to "try to prevent" cig ads
2) Cig ads should remain legal (i.e., gov't should NOT make cig ads illegal)

THAT's the weird thing - it seems contradictory to say "try to prevent it!" but "it should be legal!" All that extra fluff about fatty foods, etc, is all just the reasons WHY the author thinks the two above things. We don't need to address that, or worry about the connection between fatty foods and cigarettes at all. It's just the fact that the two above things about cigarette ads look like they are a bit in conflict that creates the 'apparent conflict', and that's what we need to resolve.

We can predict at this point that we need an answer that says, essentially, that it's possible to "try to prevent" and yet still keep something "legal". And that's what should lead us straight to (D). The 'financial disincentives' part is not really important - what IS important is simply that the answer gives us some way to "try to prevent" cig ads and yet still keep them "legal".

Remember, for paradox questions, identify the two items that appear to be in conflict, and focus on finding an answer that would make it clear that they are not actually in conflict at all!

Please let me know if this helps clear up a few things!