QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: Research shows significant…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The evidence helps show that advertising does in fact influence smoking.
REASONING: Countries with smoking advertising restrictions have had great reductions in first time smoking.
ANALYSIS: This feels like a good argument, because we already tend to think tobacco advertising is bad. But actually, the author has just shown a correlation between smoking advertising restrictions and reductions in first time smoking.
Whenever there’s a correlation, there are four possibilities:
- Restrictions reduce first time smoking.
- Reduced first time smoking causes restrictions.
- Some third factor causes both reduced first time smoking and advertising restrictions.
- The correlation is random.
You can weaken the correlation by showing that one of the other four possibilities exists.
___________
- This answer talks about an absolute term “unlikely”, whereas the stimulus was talking about a relative change “less likely”. You can be unlikely to quit, but still more likely to do so than before.
- This is an irrelevant fact about the nature of the advertising restrictions. We care about the effect of the restrictions, not the legal fine print.
- CORRECT. This is number three from the list above. If this is true, then it’s possible a third factor (negative attitudes towards smoking) are the cause of both the advertising restrictions and the reduction in first time smoking.
- The stimulus was only talking about the number of first time smokers. It doesn’t matter what happens after people start.
This answer also says nothing about whether advertising changes attitudes. - This is an irrelevant fact about advertising. For this to matter, we’d need to know what percentage of people are relatively unaffected by tobacco advertising. And other advertising doesn’t matter.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Patricia says
Just to clarify, you stated, “The stimulus was talking about a reduction in first time smokers. People who already smoke are a different group.”
The stimulus referred to reductions in ALL of the people smoking. The stimulus only stressed the reductions were more emphasized in the number of first-time smokers. It still weakens, but not as much as answer C.
FounderGraeme Blake says
I think it’s still a relevant distinction, but I noticed a bigger flaw with A and changed it. “unlikely” to quit is an absolute term. “More likely” is a relative term. You could be more likely to quit, yet still unlikely to do so. That doesn’t mean lack of advertising had no impact.
Avoid thinking multiple answers weaken. The wrong ones are always really wrong.