That long-term cigarette smoking

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   no one should feel it necessary to deny the scientifically well-established fact that long- term cigarette smoking can

   The author isn't concluding that no one should feel the need to deny the smoking-harm fact. The author is concluding that you don't need to deny it in order to reject company responsibility. This answer drops the "in order to" connection and turns it into a free-standing conclusion about denial. That's not the main point.

   6%
2. B

   Premise0% picked this

   people who get cavities should not be able to sue

   This is the candy half of the analogy — the supporting evidence. The author uses it to draw a parallel with the tobacco case, but it's not the main conclusion. The main conclusion is the parallel claim about tobacco/companies, not the candy claim itself.

   0%
3. C

   Correct92% picked this

   the fact that smokers’ health problems can be caused by their smoking is not enough to justify holding tobacco companies either legally

   Why this is right

   This is the main conclusion. The author's point is that the causal fact (smoking → poor health) isn't enough by itself to justify holding tobacco companies responsible. The candy analogy demonstrates the same logic: candy causes cavities, but that fact alone doesn't justify suing candy makers. So the equivalent claim about tobacco companies — "smoking-causes-harm isn't enough to justify responsibility" — is what the argument is establishing.

   Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   92%
4. D

   Unsupported0% picked this

   excessive consumption of candy will lead to health problems just as surely as long-term

   The author doesn't claim candy and smoking lead to comparable health problems. The candy comparison is structural, not about magnitude — both have known causal links. Whether candy's effects are as severe as smoking's isn't something the author asserts.

   0%
5. E

   Unsupported2% picked this

   if candy manufacturers were held responsible for tooth decay among candy eaters then tobacco companies should also be held responsible for

   The author isn't making a conditional claim about what would follow if candy makers were held responsible. The author uses the candy case as evidence that we don't hold makers responsible for causation. The author isn't saying "if we did hold them responsible, then we'd have to hold tobacco responsible too" — that flips the argument.

   2%