PrepTest 94+, Section 2, Question 9
Editorialist: Evidence shows that restrictions on tobacco advertising have had a significant impact on smoking among adults. A recent survey has shown that a smaller percentage of adults now smoke than at any other time in the last two decades. The decline in the percentage of adults who smoke has been most marked during the last ten years, and, not coincidently, some of the most important restrictions on tobacco advertising came into force ten years ago.
Editorialist: Evidence shows that restrictions on tobacco advertising have had a significant impact on smoking among adults. A recent survey has shown that a smaller percentage of adults now smoke than at any other time in the last two decades. The decline in the percentage of adults who smoke has been most marked during the last ten years, and, not coincidently, some of the most important restrictions on tobacco advertising came into force ten years ago.
Editorialist: Evidence shows that restrictions on tobacco advertising have had a significant impact on smoking among adults. A recent survey has shown that a smaller percentage of adults now smoke than at any other time in the last two decades. The decline in the percentage of adults who smoke has been most marked during the last ten years, and, not coincidently, some of the most important restrictions on tobacco advertising came into force ten years ago.
Editorialist: Evidence shows that restrictions on tobacco advertising have had a significant impact on smoking among adults. A recent survey has shown that a smaller percentage of adults now smoke than at any other time in the last two decades. The decline in the percentage of adults who smoke has been most marked during the last ten years, and, not coincidently, some of the most important restrictions on tobacco advertising came into force ten years ago.
The reasoning in the editorialist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
fails to consider whether there have been any changes over the last two decades in the percentage of the teenage population who smoke
uses evidence that describes only a percentage of the adult population to reach a conclusion about the entire adult population
reaches a conclusion about smoking among today's adults based on statistics from ten or twenty years ago
neglects to take into account whether there have been restrictions on the advertising of other products besides tobacco in the past ten years
fails to consider the possibility that factors other than restrictions on advertising have contributed to the decline in smoking among adults
Explanations
The editorialist's argument goes like this:
(1) A recent survey shows a smaller percentage of adults smoke now than at any other point over the last 20 years.
(2) The decline has been the most significant over the past 10 years.
(3) Some significant restrictions on tobacco advertising came into force 10 years ago.
(4) Therefore, restrictions on tobacco advertising have had a significant impact on adult smoking.
It's not the worst argument I've ever heard, but it's definitely not proven.
I'm a kid of the '90s, so I can help but remember the "Truth" anti-tobacco advertising campaigns that were prevalent when I was a kid. What if a series of similar ad campaigns ran along the same time period as our advertising restrictions? That would certainly weaken this argument.
It turns out to be a flaw question. So we need an answer that the argument does, and does wrong.
I'm looking for something like, "overlooks the possibility that other things contributed to the decrease in smoking."
Let's take a look.
No way. Teen smoking percentages are completely tangential to this argument.
No. Careful, here. The argument doesn't actually conclude something about the entire adult population but about "smoking among adults." That's still the adult smoking population.
Nah. It uses statistics across the past twenty years, and they're relevant statistics. Next!
Nope. What would restrictions on other products—even similar products... vapes, maybe?—have to do with percentage of smokers. It really only seems plausible that these particular restrictions, or something else related to tobacco, would cause the decline in adult smoking.
Finally. Yes, this is totally the answer. And very close to our prediction. If Truth is running ads showing people dying of lung cancer at the same time the legislature is banning tobacco advertising, it might be things other than just the restrictions contributing to the decline.
0 Comments