Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so, since such adv...

Mason on October 9, 2019

Can we get an explanation?

Could you guys please explain this one? Thanks in advance!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

on October 10, 2019

Hello @molinde,

Argument 1: Governments are justified in trying to prevent cigarette ads, because they promote unhealthy behavior.

Argument 2: Cigarette ads should remain legal as long as fatty food ads are legal, because both encourage unhealthy practices.

These two statements conflict, unless there is a distinction between prevention and complete illegality. That is the key to answering this question. Which answer choice offers such a distinction, so that the author's two statements can coexist?

I was able to eliminate A, B, and C pretty quickly, but I had to think about D and E for a minute.

The problem with E is the last phrase, "but should not try to prevent such advertisements." The author's first argument says that the government can justifiably prevent cigarette ads. E conflicts with this statement, so it is incorrect.

D gives us what we need. Financial disincentives are a way to prevent cigarette ads, but this is not the same as outlawing them entirely. This is one way to reconcile the author's arguments, so it is the correct answer.