Columnist: Research shows significant

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact Relative vs. Absolute19% picked this

   People who smoke are unlikely to quit merely because they are no longer exposed

   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%
2. B

   No Impact: broadcast vs. print1% picked this

   Broadcast media tend to have stricter restrictions on tobacco advertising than

   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%
3. C

   Correct74% picked this

   Restrictions on tobacco advertising are imposed only in countries where a negative attitude toward tobacco use is

   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.

   74%
4. D

   No Impact3% picked this

   Most people who begin smoking during adolescence continue to smoke throughout

   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.

   3%
5. E

   No Impact3% picked this

   People who are largely unaffected by tobacco advertising tend to be unaffected by other kinds

   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%