Logical reasoning PrepTest 135 · Section 2 · Question 6

Incorrect. This answer establishes a sufficient condition for the tax to achieve its goal, and that condition would be easy enough to meet, so this aligns with the argument, it doesn't undermine it—especially since the Mayor is suggesting to tax cigarettes "heavily."

Incorrect. Even if consumers are more likely to keep buying something heavily taxed rather than something that sees its price go up for other reasons, that doesn't mean they're particularly likely to do so. And if they're not 100% likely to keep buying the item at the same rate, then the tax here could be effective.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Goal - Reduce smoking
Approach 1 (Antitobacco advocates) - Heavily tax cigarettes to fund education programs
Approach 2 (Mayor) - Heavily tax cigarettes
Support - Surveys that show cigarette sales drop in cities with heavy cigarette taxes

Answer Anticipation:
This argument falls into a common structure—goal/approach. When this happens, the viewpoints are defined by the different approaches, and the author's preferred approach is usually the main point.

Here, there's an interesting wrinkle—the two approaches are essentially the same. Both approaches want to heavily tax cigarettes. Certain antismoking advocates want to use that revenue to fund education programs, but the Mayor—the author—believes the taxes themselves will have the desired effect.

Since we're trying to undermine the Mayor's argument, we should focus on that logic—cities that have introduced such taxes have seen a decline in cigarette sales. There are two features of this argument that suggest specific flaws that can be undermined in the correct answer.

First, the argument brings up a correlation (cities that impose a tax see a drop in cigarette sales) and concludes a causal relationship (the taxes are effective at reducing smoking). That's a correlation/causation flaw, and so we can weaken it with the normal answers:
(1) ID an alternative cause
(2) Counterexamples
(3) Reverse causality (this doesn't make sense logically or because of the timeline)

Second, the argument uses one measurement as a proxy for another. Here, cigarette sales are used as a proxy for cigarette use. Any answer that questions the relationship between cigarette sales in a city and cigarette smoking in a city will weaken this argument. For example, if people started buying cigarettes from surrounding towns that didn't impose a tax, that would suggest the drop in cigarette sales might not have resulted in a drop in smoking.

Answer Explanation:
This answer calls into question whether cigarette sales are a good proxy for cigarette use. If cigarette sales in a city that implements a heavy tax go down, but sales go up substantially in surrounding areas, it's likely that those sales are from people in the city traveling to buy cigarettes. This answer explains how sales can go down while smoking doesn't, thus undermining the argument.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument uses one measurement as a proxy for another, there's always a chance that the measurement doesn't allow the conclusion to be drawn. When you see this happen, look for answers that deal with that connection.

Incorrect. This answer addresses the education program that the antitobacco advocates are arguing for. The Mayor is noncommittal towards those programs, but she doesn't argue against them, so evidence that they're effective doesn't undermine her argument.

Incorrect. This answer addresses the education programs that are ancillary to the Mayor's argument. She's noncommittal about their effectiveness, and instead focuses on whether taxes themselves will work. She wouldn't be surprised if the education programs were effective, and this answer doesn't actually establish whether or not the programs would work, just an effect if they did.