Loading...
In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?" The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public.
Which of the following circumstances would make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In one state, all cities and most towns have antismoking ordinances. |
|
| A petition entitled "Petition for Statewide Smoking Restriction" is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only, "Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?" |
|
| The petition advocates a state law banning smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open to the public. |
|
This passage doesn't present a traditional argument but rather describes a situation that could be misleading. It starts by telling us what already exists (local smoking ordinances), then shows us how a petition is being presented to voters (in general terms), and finally reveals what the petition actually says (specific restrictions).
There is no explicit conclusion - this is a setup passage that describes a potentially misleading petition situation.
The structure creates a contrast between what voters might expect (extending current local ordinances statewide) versus what the petition actually proposes (specific restrictions in retail and government spaces). The potential for misleading voters comes from this gap between expectation and reality.
Weaken - We need to find circumstances that would make the petition misleading to voters who think it's just extending existing local ordinances statewide
The key claims involve the scope and nature of restrictions - what's currently covered by local ordinances versus what the petition actually proposes
Since this is a weaken question, we need to find scenarios where the petition would be misleading. The voters think they're signing something that extends local ordinances statewide, but we need circumstances where the petition actually does something different from what local ordinances do. We should look for gaps between what exists locally and what the petition proposes.
This discusses health costs and insurance premiums affecting nonsmokers. While this might be relevant to smoking policy debates, it doesn't address the misleading nature of the petition. Whether smoking affects insurance costs has nothing to do with the gap between what voters think they're signing (extending local ordinances) versus what the petition actually proposes. This doesn't make the petition misleading.
This mentions that rural areas have fewer retail establishments and government offices. The petition targets these specific types of locations, so having fewer of them in rural areas doesn't create misleading circumstances. If anything, this might make the petition less impactful in rural areas, but it doesn't make the petition misleading about extending local ordinances statewide.
This is correct. The statement reveals that the state law would actually supersede (replace) local ordinances that are stronger than the proposed state law. This creates a deeply misleading situation because voters think they're extending their existing strong local protections statewide, but they're actually signing something that would weaken their current protections by replacing stronger local ordinances with weaker state restrictions.
This discusses voter sentiment favoring smoking restrictions. If most voters already support smoking restrictions, this doesn't make the petition misleading - it just shows there's support for the cause. The existence of widespread support doesn't create any misleading circumstances about what the petition actually does.
This states the state law wouldn't affect local fire hazard ordinances. This actually reduces potential misleading aspects because it clarifies that some local ordinances would remain intact. If voters knew their fire safety smoking bans would stay in place, this wouldn't make the petition misleading - it would provide clarity.