(E) says, "if candy manufacturers were held responsible for tooth decay among candy eaters then tobacco companies should also be held responsible for health problems suffered by smokers"
The key reason that (E) is wrong is that it's discussing about how "if things were different," which tells us that it's going far beyond the scope of the argument in the stimulus, so this would never be in contention to be the main point. Additionally, there's a conditional fallacy in this answer choice that does not represent what's going on in the argument. In the argument, we're told that candy manufacturers are not responsible, so tobacco manufacturers should not be either. (E) argues the inverse of this, saying that if candy manufacturers were held responsible, tobacco companies should also be responsible. Thus, (E) is out.
(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"
(C) looks great, as we know from the stimulus that tobacco companies can't be blamed for people's own poor decisions. This is the main point of the argument that the rest of the stimulus is designed to support. The exact portion of the text that captures the main point is "it is not necessary to deny this fact in order to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held either morally or legally responsible."
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
FredyFloFebruary 18, 2020
To make sure!! The Stimulus is the 1st and last sentence, as for the conclusion starts with however? (id like to make sure I'm on track) and it makes sense how you explained the stretch, I see how C is restating the conclusion!!!
