Q3 - Consumer: A new law requires all cigarette packaging

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: New law to remove logo and add warning / graphic photos will not affect the smoking habits of most regular smokers.
Evidence: Most regular smokers rarely look at the package when they take out a cigarette.

Answer Anticipation:
We're essentially connecting the premise idea about most regular smokers to the conclusion idea about most regular smokers. "If you don't look at packaging when you take out a cigarette, then the packaging is not going to affect your smoking habits". Since one might object to this argument, "What if smokers check out the packaging BEFORE they take out a cig or AS they're smoking?" A correct answer could potentially rule out all those possibilities by saying, "the only time a smoker would ever look at the packaging is when they're taking out a cig".

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) "Should be implemented" is entirely out of scope. We're not trying to prove anything should/shouldn't be done. The conclusion is about proving whether something will / won't affect the habits of regular smokers.

(B) This "if/then" rule is set up to prove that something WILL affect the habits of regular smokers. But our conclusion is about proving that something WILL NOT affect the habits. If we're trying to prove "---> Y", then a rule that says "---> ~Y" is of no use to us.

(C) This feels like a good strengthener, because if they already know the risks, it sounds like this packaging won't have an effect. But this is Sufficient Assumption, not Strengthen. We want exact conclusion wording. We need to prove "will not affect smoking habits". This answer doesn't contain that wording. This answer provides some doubt and wiggle room, since someone who is already familiar with health risks of smoking may nonetheless be affected by these new ads, which feature disturbing pictures. You could be familiar with risks but still get shook by a picture of "smoker's skin".

(D) YES. Unless = if not. "If regular smokers do NOT frequently look a the packaging when taking out cigs, then the new packaging cannot affect their smoking habits". That perfectly bridges the premise to the conclusion, so it locks in the conclusion.

(E) Being able to describe the logo is out of scope, when it comes to whether or not these new ads would affect the smoking habits of regular smokers.

Takeaway/Pattern: Sufficient Assumption usually rewards mathematical thinking. If you're trying to prove "Dan's band sucks", then you need an if/then rule that says "If xyz is true, then your band sucks". Since we are trying to prove that "this law won't affect habits", we need a rule that says "If xyz is true, then it won't affect habits". Knowing we need such a rule is enough to rule out all the other answers.

#officialexplanation