Q2 - The smoker's response to the

[peg_city]

Why is C wrong? The argument in inadequate according to the smoker. "yet it would be manifestly unreasonable"

Thanks

[noah]

C is wrong because the Smoker's point is not that the approach would be inadequate, but that the approach would be "manifestly unreasonable" (by analogy).

The politician argues that smokes should pay for the cost of the smoking-related health problems (through a tax on cigarettes).

The smoker disagrees, pointing out that if this idea were applied to those who eat junk food, which also causes health problems, it would be unreasonable.

(A) is the best answer, as the smoker offers an example (a counterexample) to point out a flaw in the politician's reasoning.

(B) is incorrect - no alternative is offered.

(C) is wrong because there's no discussion of adequacy.

(D) is out of scope - there's no discussion of accuracy.

(E) is similar out of scope - there's no discussion of the impact of the proposal.