QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue
ARGUMENTS: The politician thinks that it is reasonable that cigarette smokers should fund the new national health campaign. Smoking causes serious health problems; therefore smokers should bear the cost of problems they cause.
The smoker argues that it would be unreasonable to tax those who eat foods high in fat and cholesterol. Yet it is just as well established that those people cause health problems.
ANALYSIS: The smoker makes an argument by analogy. It is a good argument if the politician agrees that it would be unreasonable to tax people who eat fatty foods. Both situations are identical, logically speaking.
You may think the smoker only disagrees with the politician because the plan will hurt the smoker. That might be true, but it doesn’t affect the smoker’s reasoning.
The issue is whether it is reasonable to tax smokers.
- CORRECT. The politician thinks it is reasonable. The smoker thinks that it is unreasonable.
- Neither speakers actually talks about whether people are aware their actions are unhealthy.
- The smoker thinks the effects are equal. We don’t know what the politician thinks since they don’t mention fatty foods.
- Presumably the smokers will benefit from health care funding.
- Efficient in this case means: effective. The smoker didn’t claim that the plan wouldn’t work. They just thought it was unreasonable, i.e. not fair.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly