Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT135 S2 Q6 Explanation

Mayor: Local antitobacco

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

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. Although the effectiveness of such education programs is debatable, there is strong evidence that the taxes themselves would produce the sought­ after reduction substantially in cities that impose stiff tax increases on cigarettes.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
6.

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

Answer choices

  1. Strengthens2% picked this

    A city-imposed tax on cigarettes will substantially reduce the amount of smoking in the city if the tax is burdensome

    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. Too Weak21% picked this

    Consumers are more likely to continue buying a product if its price increases due to higher taxes than if its price

    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.

  3. Correct68% picked this

    Usually, cigarette sales will increase substantially in the areas surrounding a city after that city imposes

    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.

  4. Too Weak5% picked this

    People who are well informed about the effects of long-term tobacco use are significantly less likely to smoke than are

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

  5. Too Weak / Out of Scope3% picked this

    Antismoking education programs that are funded by taxes on cigarettes will tend to lose their funding

    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.

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