Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S2 · Q6 Mayor: Local antitobacco

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Mayor: Local antitobacco activists are calling for expanded antismoking education programs paid for by revenue from heavily increased taxes on cigarettes sold in the city.

Evidence

Surveys show that cigarette sales drop substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

Conclusion

There is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the sought after reduction in smoking.

Evaluate

The surveys establish a correlation between higher taxes on cigarettes and a drop in cigarette sales.

CURIOUS FACT Why are cig sales dropping in cities that have imposed stiff tax increases on cigs?

AUTHOR'S CAUSAL INTERPRETATION The taxes are discouraging people from smoking, so people are smoking less, so cig sales are dropping.

We know that on Weaken the most common way to attack the Explain Curious Fact argument archetype is to suggest an alternate explanation for the curious fact.

The other way is to undermine the plausibility of the author's causal story.

Finally, even if we granted that taxes in these other places did lead to a drop in smoking, we could weaken this argument by providing some reason why in OUR CITY things would be different.

Goal

Look for an alternate way to explain lower cig sales, an answer that makes it seem like the higher cigarette tax did not cause the drop in smoking in other cities, or an answer that makes it seem like a cig tax in our city wouldn't lead to a drop in smoking.

6.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning in the argument above?

  1. A city-imposed tax on cigarettes

    Strengthens

    While it’s not known whether the tax would be burdensome to the average cigarette consumer, this would tend to support the view that the tax would reduce the amount of smoking in the city.

    2% picked this

  2. Consumers are more likely to

    Too Weak

    While the relative comparison puts the increased price of cigarettes from a tax as less impactful than an increased price for some other reason, it does leave open the possibility that the tax could produce the sought after reduction in smoking.

    21% picked this

  3. Correct

    Usually, cigarette sales will increase

    Why this is right

    This suggests an alternative explanation of the drop in sales of cigarettes' immediately following the imposition of new cigarette taxes—smokers aren't smoking less, they're just transferring their purchases to neighboring cities.

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

    69% picked this

  4. People who are well informed

    Too Weak

    This would require an additional assumption that those cities that imposed new taxes on cigarettes also implemented antismoking education programs.

    5% picked this

  5. Antismoking education programs that are

    Too Weak / Out of Scope

    This doesn’t shed any light on whether it was the increased taxes or the antismoking education program that led to the reduction in smoking. Furthermore the fact that the education programs eventually lost there funding is not relevant to the argument.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free