Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S2 · Q9 Columnist: Research shows significant

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

Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of people smoking, and especially in the number of first-time smokers in those countries that have imposed stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising.

Conclusion (this provides grounds for)

Tobacco companies are wrong to claim that advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

rephrase: Advertising does have a significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

Evidence

Research shows significant reductions in the number of people smoking, especially the number of first-time smokers, in those countries that have imposed stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising.

Evaluate

This argument is presenting a Correlation in its evidence:

And the argument is assuming Causation in its conclusion: "X has a significant causal impact on Y"

Hence, we could use our Explain Curious Fact mindset.

Curious Fact ... How come countries that impose stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising see significant reductions in the number of people smoking?

Author's Explanation ... the restrictions on advertising cause the reduction in smoking, because advertising has a significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

These types of Explain Curious Fact arguments always have the same two pressure points: - Alternate Explanations for the curious fact - the plausibility of the Author's Explanation

Goal

On Weaken questions, it's more common for them to weaken a causal conclusion by suggesting an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact.

So let's look for an answer that gives us a different way to explain why the countries that imposed restrictions on tobacco advertising saw significant reductions in smoking (maybe there's some 3rd factor that explains both the laws against tobacco advertising and the reduction in smoking).

But we'll keep our mind open to any answer that undermines the plausibility of the idea that .

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the columnist's reasoning?

People who smoke are unlikely
No Impact Relative vs. Absolute
When we first read this, it somewhat sounds like it's undermining the idea that "tobacco ads have significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke". After all, it's saying that people are unlikely to quit merely because they no longer see tobacco ads. But we're not concerned about whether they are likely / unlikely (absolute) to quit smoking. We're concerned with whether they are more likely to quit smoking than they were when the ads were still allowed. In other words, if removing ads led to 20% of smokers quitting, that would be a significant reduction in the tendency to smoke, even though 80% of smokers continued smoking, so as a group they were unlikely to quit once the ads stopped. More importantly, this answer only deals with existing smokers who may / may not quit. The other way that removing ads is thought to reduce smoking is by reducing the number of first-time smokers. This answer doesn't address that group at all. If removing tobacco ads causes some smokers to quit (even if a minority of them) but also causes many people to never take up smoking in the first place, then the author would still be right to say that removing these ads had a significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.
19% picked this
Broadcast media tend to have
No Impact: broadcast vs. print
This argument isn't ever differentiating between broadcast media and print media. It's talking about nations that impose stringent restrictions on [all kinds] of tobacco advertising. Whether broadcast is more / less / equally stringent compared to print media doesn't affect the argument at all.
1% picked this
Correct
Restrictions on tobacco advertising are
Why this is right
Like most correct answers on Weaken when we're doing an Explain Curious Fact argument, this weakens by suggesting an Alternative Explanation for the curious fact. The author looked at the fact that nations that impose stringent restrictions on tobacco ads have significant reductions in the number of people smoking and assumed that restricting the ads caused the reduction in smoking. But whenever we have a correlation between X and Y, and then the author assumes that X causes Y, we immediately consider two alternate possibilities: - Reverse Cause (maybe Y causes X?) - 3rd Factor (maybe Z causes X and Y?) This is a 3rd Factor type of answer. "Increasingly widespread negative attitudes toward tobacco use" are leading to there being restrictions on tobacco ads and are leading to there being reductions in smoking. By analogy, suppose we said, "Research shows significant reductions in the number of people who have sex before marriage in those families who go to church every week. Thus, going to church every week as a significant causal impact on the tendency towards pre-marital sex." The 3rd factor alternate explanation would be, "No, no --- being very religious is the causal factor that explains why they're going to church every week and why they're 'saving themselves' for marriage."
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% picked this
Most people who begin smoking
No Impact
This answer has nothing to do with hurting the plausibility that "tobacco ads have a significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke". And it's not offering an alternate explanation for why countries with stringent restrictions on tobacco ads have significant reductions in the number of people smoking. Thus, it's useless to us. It's just a random fact about the sticking power of smoking, if you start in your adolescence.
2% picked this
People who are largely unaffected
No Impact
Do we even care about "other kinds of advertising"? Probably now. However, we could hurt the plausibility that "tobacco ads have a significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke" by pointing to other forms of advertising and saying that they have little causal impact on people's tendency to do what's being advertised. For example, an answer like "advertisements for casino gambling / alcohol have little causal impact on the tendency to gamble or drink alcohol" would weaken somewhat. But this isn't saying that other types of advertisements tend to have little causal impact. It's saying, for the group of people that are not impacted by tobacco advertising, they are also not impacted by other types of advertising. It might be that 95% of people are impacted by tobacco advertising and other types. This answer is only talking about those who aren't, but it isn't giving us any sense of whether that's normal or abnormal when it comes to advertising's impact on behavior.
3% 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