By referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as "purely programmatic" (line 49) in nature, the author mo...

Zachary on April 27, 2018

Example One

In example one, the objective is to strengthen the argument. The argument states that there was a anti-smoking campaign funded by the government that the conclusion claims caused a 3% decrease in the amount of smokers. I ask myself, okay, how do I strengthen this? Your explanation says that discrediting the government's explanation that their tax increase of twenty cents caused a 3% decline in smokers. And then you say what strengthens the argument is to state that the suppliers lowered their prices by 20 cents to counter the anti smoking campaign. How would discrediting the the tax reduction in which the government says created the conclusion be a strengthening option? By discrediting, I mean the government increases taxes and the suppliers decrease by the same amount. How does countering the governments effort STRENGTHEN the argument that 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? First of all, what advertisement? We're talking about taxes? So there was an advertisement AND a tax reduction? Please advise.


Zachary on April 27, 2018

Actually I think where the answer lies is exactly in that question: is it the advertisement or the taxes? It's not the taxes and, here, let me tell you why: it's because the stores responded by countering the taxes so it's not that explication, it must be the advertisement. Which therefore strengthens the conclusion.

Zachary on April 27, 2018


Anita on April 29, 2018

That's correct! If we're looking to say it's the advertising campaign, then it would help to say it wasn't the taxes. We can tell it isn't the taxes because those were counterbalanced by the price drop.

on June 13, 2021

Anita's explanation was far more clear than that of the video. THANK YOU! :)