One year ago a local government initiated an antismoking advertising campaign in local newspapers, which it financed ...

shunhe on July 23, 2020

Hi @Omar.Elgohail,

Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at the stimulus. We’re told that a local government started an antismoking advertising campaign in local newspapers, and it financed this by taxing cigarettes by 20 cents per pack. Then, a year later, the number of people who smoked there went down by 3%. The argument then concludes that what was said in the advertisements worked, even if only a little: that the advertisements were the cause of people smoking less.

Now we’re asked for something that strengthens the arguments. Take a look at (D), which tells us that people who sold cigarettes reduced the price of the cigarettes by 20 cents per pack. Well, that means that instead of charging the consumers 20 cents more, they charged the consumers the same amount. So consumers paid the same price for the cigarettes. And this helps to eliminate another explanation for why less people smoked cigarettes: it wasn’t the advertising itself, but the fact that cigarettes cost more. We now know because of (D) that cigarettes don’t actually cost more for consumers, so that can’t be the explanation. So (D) eliminates another explanation, and thus strengthens the argument.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.