Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S3 · Q12 One year ago a local government

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

One year ago a local government initiated an anti-smoking advertising campaign in local newspapers, which it financed by imposing a tax on cigarettes of 20 cents per pack.

Conclusion (clearly)

What was said in the advertisements had an effect, although a small one, on the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes.

Evidence

One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising campaign in local newspapers.

One year later, the number of people in the locality who smoke cigarettes had declined by 3 percent.

Evaluate

This argument presents a correlation between a decline in smokers and an antismoking ad campaign, attributing this decline to the advertisements. We're dealing with an Explain Curious Fact pattern here:

Curious Fact

Why did the number of smokers decline by 3% after the antismoking campaign and tax were implemented?

Author's Explanation

The content of the advertisements caused the decline in smokers.

Goal

We strengthen by ruling out an alternate explanation for the decline (such as the 20 cent tax bothering people enough that they started buying fewer cigs) or boosting the plausibility of the author's hypothesis (making it more likely that people noticed this antismoking campaign and were persuaded by it to stop smoking).

12.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the argument?

Residents of the locality have
No Impact
Whether or not residents have increased their use of other tobacco products does not directly address whether the advertisements, specifically, had an effect on cigarette smoking rates.
10% picked this
A substantial number of cigarette
No Impact
The conclusion is specifically about the number of people who smoke. If someone still smokes but smokes less, they are still recorded as a smoker. So it's irrelevant to the conclusion whether the smokers smoke less than they used to. Had the conclusion said, "The campaign has had a positive effect on smoking" or something generic like that, then it would have been a strengthener. .
26% picked this
Admissions to the local hospital
No Impact
We don't know whether the decrease in chronic respiratory ailments has anything to do with smoking. And even if it did, we wouldn't know whether the decrease was related to the antismoking campaign or something else.
5% picked this
Correct
Merchants in the locality responded
Why this is right
This strengthens by ruling out an alternate explanation for the decrease in smoking. There was a Breadcrumb detail in there that there was a 20 cent tax added to cigs. If the price went up by 20 cents, that alone could explain a 3% decrease in number of smokers. But if merchants reduced prices to offset the tax, then the price of cigarettes didn't actually go up, so it rules out the idea that a price increase from the tax could be responsible for the decrease in smoking.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
57% picked this
Smokers in the locality had
Opposite (if anything)
It's hard to judge much from this income disparity, but if anything, the poorer that smokers are, the more likely that they would be dissuaded by a potential 20 cent tax on cigarettes, which would be supporting an alternate explanation for why the number of smokers decreased 3%.
2% 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