Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. Smoking cigarettes is unhealthy, so this answer would justify banning cigarette ads. Kendrink, on the other hand, states that they should remain legal.

Incorrect. The paradox doesn't surround the advertising of fatty foods, so we can eliminate this answer for not addressing the paradox. And, if anything, in contrasting fattening foods with cigarettes and saying ads for the former should be allowed, this answer seems to imply ads for cigarettes shouldn't be allowed, contradicting Kendrick.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't address the half of the paradox about governments trying to prevent such ads.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Arguments

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Point 1 — Cigarettes are unhealthy, so governments should try to prevent cigarette ads.
Point 2 — Cigarette ads should be legal, since fatty food (also unhealthy) ads are legal.

Answer Anticipation:
This is a Paradox question where it's very important to be clear on the apparent conflict—i.e., the paradox—between the statements.

The reason this is so important is because there are actually two mini—arguments in here. The first has to do with governments trying to prevent cigarettes from being advertised based on their unhealthy nature. The second has to do with these ads being legal because of a comparison to other ads for unhealthy practices.

Each individual argument doesn't present a Paradox—whether or not they're valid (they're not), they at least make sense and don't present a conflict.

And the premises of each argument don't present a paradox with each other—both treat cigarettes as unhealthy.

So the paradox must relate to the conclusions. Which does make sense as a paradox—how exactly does Kendrick propose that governments prevent cigarette ads from existing without banning them? That seems like the easiest means by which they could be prevented!

Therefore, any answer that proposes a means by which cigarette ads can be prevented without simply being banned will resolve this paradox. (If you're thinking they could use taxes, we're with you.)

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a mechanism by which governments can prevent cigarette ads without banning them, thus resolving the paradox. It explains how someone could hold those two views—governments shouldn't outright ban cigarette ads, but they should try to prevent them using financial disincentives.

Key Takeaway:
This question highlights the importance of being very clear on what the paradox is before heading into the answer choices. There were several pieces of extraneous information that played into incorrect answers, and identifying those ahead of time made it much easier to eliminate those answers.

Incorrect. The stimulus states that governments are justified in trying to prevent cigarette ads, so this answer saying that they shouldn't' try to prevent them cuts against it instead of explaining it.