LSAT 116 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q15

LR Question 15 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being…

QUESTION TYPE: Resolve the Paradox

CONCLUSION: Two conclusions:

Governments are justified in trying to prevent cigarette ads, because: The ads are encouraging people to do something unhealthy.

The ads should remain legal, because: We don’t ban fatty food ads, even though these also encourage an unhealthy practice.

ANALYSIS: Paradox questions often depend on nuance. Did Kendrick say how governments should try to prevent cigarette ads?

___________

1. This contradicts his second conclusion.
2. Addiction isn’t mentioned. Further, Kendrick mentions fatty foods to make an analogy to a similar situation.
3. This is talking about what advertisers should do, when we are concerned with governments. Further, we don’t know anything about “most advertisements” and whether or not they should be legal.
4. CORRECT. This works. In fact, this is the current government strategy on cigarette ads in many countries. Allow them, but restrict or discourage them. This is another example of how common sense or real world knowledge can be useful on the LSAT, if used carefully.
5. No, this contradicts his conclusion that they are justified in preventing advertisements.

Recap: The question begins with “Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being”. It is a Paradox question. Learn how to master LSAT Paradox questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.