That longterm cigarette smoking can lead to health problems including cancer and lung disease is a scientifically wel...
ielkindMay 30, 2020
What's wrong with Answer (C)?
After reading the passage I felt that the arguments use of "longterm" vs "excessive" was a definite flaw. Excessive can certainly be an individual's fault, whereas longterm could be the tobacco industry's fault; being able to tell serious side effects from long term usage is not common knowledge.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! So (C) tells us that the argument leaves undefined critical qualifying terms like “excessive” and “longterm.” But the terms are honestly pretty clear in regular usage here. The argument doesn’t take advantage of any ambiguities in the usage of these terms in making its point; while you might debate where exactly the cutoff for “longterm” might be or “excessive” consumption of candy, the terms are used pretty clearly. Excessive consumption is consumption that’s out of the ordinary, and longterm cigarette smoking is most likely at least for a couple of years. The argument doesn’t rely on exactly where these boundaries fall (is longterm 5 years? 10 years? Is an excessive amount of candy 10 or 15 pounds?), and so this isn’t the most critical weakness of the argument. Remember that on the LSAT, we need to be looking for the BEST answer choice, not just a possible answer choice, and (E) is definitely a more serious flaw in the argument than (C) is.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
