Q9 - Research shows significant reductions in the number of

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
A decline in smoking is correlated with restrictions on cigarette ads. Therefore, cigarette ads cause smoking.

Answer Anticipation:
I rephrased the conclusion, but this argument is concluding a causal relationship between advertising and smoking based on a correlation. The causal language in the conclusion is a huge indicator that the Correlation/Causation flaw is at play; since about half of all Weaken questions feature one, this is a great place to start.

We generally weaken causal arguments by:
1) Providing an alternative cause (such as taxes on cigarettes, or the social stigma associated with smoking)
2) A counterexample (a country that has seen a decline in smoking despite regulating ads; a country that has regulated ads but not seen a decline in smoking)
3) Revere causation (which doesn't make sense here)

To me, 1 and 2 are both possibilities, so I'm heading into the answer choices looking for one of them.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Tempting! This answer choice is trying to get you to think this weakens the argument by showing that the ad restrictions won't actually have the effect of lowering smoking. However, we already know smoking rates have lowered. Also, the reduction in smoking could come exclusively from new smokers, and the ads would still be considered successful.

(B) Out of scope comparison. As long as there are restrictions that are having an impact, it doesn't matter if there are varying levels of restrictions.

(C) Bingo. This is an example of our first weakening method - pointing out an alternative cause. If people were already turning against smoking before the ads were restricted, there's a good chance the social attitudes towards smoking are the real cause and not the advertising restrictions.

(D) Degree/scope. These people could still be affected by ads during their adolescence (weren't you?). Also, the minority of people who change their behavior might do so because of the prevalence of ads, allowing for the causal relationship to still stand.

(E) This is a common incorrect answer in this type of question. Some people who don't fall into the category affected by the causality doesn't weaken the causality, however. As an analogy, just because the vast majority of people eat peanut butter with no ill effects doesn't weaken the existence of people with a peanut allergy.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Weaken questions frequently feature Correlation/Causation flaws. Learn the common ways of weakening those arguments!

#officialexplanation

[zen]

Hey everyone. This one wasn't on here yet and I had trouble with it so I figured I would do an amateur write up.


So what's going on in this argument? Well, the Columnist argues that there have been significant reductions in the number of people smoking in countries with greater restrictions on tobacco advertising.
The author then uses this evidence to conclude that, contrary to the tobacco companies views, tobacco advertising does have a causal impact on the amount of people who smoke. More succinctly, Less tobacco advertisements then less people likely to smoke.

We want to weaken this argument, so let's look at the answer choices. Let's try to find choices that do one of these things: 1) Give evidence that there actually is NOT a causal relationship between the advertising and smoking; or, 2) That there is some other cause that is causing people to smoke less, NOT necessarily the restricted advertising.

(A)- This tempted me but does it really show that there is no causal relationship? Well, it is saying that those who already smoke are unlikely to quit just because of less advertising. First, notice in the premise how it focuses on smokers in general AND first-time smokers. So this wouldn't account for why there are less first-time smokers(people who decide to try cigarettes for the first time--bad idea btw ). Second, just because it is unlikely they will quit doesn't rule out possibility that they now have a greater chance of quitting, just that it is still unlikely--compared to because there were restrictions on tobacco advertising, they might have been extremely unlikely to quit.

(B)- Irrelevant. Who cares about what type of media airs the advertisements? This does not impact the argument as we are given no information in the stimulus concerning different types of media.

(C)- Correct. Why? Because this gives us a third cause! Maybe the tobacco companies are right and the columnist i wrong--maybe there is no causal impact on smoking due to tobacco advertisements; maybe the countries that have these restrictions have them because the people there already think smoking is dumb; it is not the lack of advertisements due to restrictions that is causing less people to smoke, rather, people in these countries are smoking less anyway because it is viewed negatively. If this were the case, the evidence wouldn't allow us to say there is a causal relationship between smoking and advertising! Rather, there is another possible cause of why these people are smoking less that has nothing to do with the advertising itself.

(D)- Ok, but what about the First-Time smokers? Why are they going down as well?

(E)- How does this affect the argument? So people that arent affected blah blah, but does just pointing to an exception in regards to a certain group of people weaken the idea that there is a causal impact on advertising and smoking? No, because maybe it does not affect this group, but if it affects anyone else, we could argue there might be a causal relationship.


Hope this helps. I know it's rough but I hope it will be added to in the future.

[tommywallach]

Thanks! Great explanation!