Let's take a look. This argument contains three claims, and the best way to find out the main point is to examine how each of the claims relates to the others. The first sentence points to a well-established fact, which means that it's providing us with a premise. The last sentence of the stimulus begins with "after all," and this is generally used to introduce reasoning to support something, so we know that this sentence is supporting something else. What is this sentence supporting? It's functioning as support for the second sentence, which states that tobacco companies should not be held responsible. This means that the second claim, which begins after "however" in the second sentence, is the main point.
To find the conclusion, always think to yourself of what sentence or phrase is being supported by the rest of the stimulus. Additionally, if you're stuck and can't figure out the conclusion between two sentences, a good trick is to put the word "because" in between the sentences and then see which way makes more sense.
Looking at the answer choices, (C) says, "the fact that smokers' health problems can be caused by their smoking is not enough to justify holding tobacco companies either legally or morally responsible for those problems."
As noted in our analysis, this is the main point that the rest of the stimulus is used to support. The tobacco companies cannot be blamed for the decision of individuals. Thus, (C) is the correct answer choice.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
