Loading...
Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking. In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising.
Which of the following statements draws the most reliable conclusion from the information above?
| Passage Statement | Visualization and Linkage |
| Many people argue that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teen-agers to start or continue smoking. | Establishes: Common belief/theory
|
| In Norway, however, where there has been a ban on tobacco advertising since 1975, smoking is at least as prevalent among teen-agers as it is in countries that do not ban such advertising. | Establishes: Contradictory evidence
|
| Overall Implication | Pattern Revealed: Theory-Evidence Mismatch
|
Inference: The evidence from Norway contradicts the theory that tobacco advertising plays a crucial role in causing teenagers to start or continue smoking.
Supporting Logic: Since many people argue that tobacco advertising is crucial for teen smoking, and since Norway's long-standing advertising ban has not resulted in lower teen smoking rates compared to countries with advertising, the Norway case provides counter-evidence to this widely held belief. The fact that teen smoking is "at least as prevalent" in Norway despite 48 years without tobacco advertising suggests that advertising may not be the crucial causal factor many believe it to be.
Clarification Note: This does not prove that tobacco advertising has no effect whatsoever on teen smoking, but it does demonstrate that the absence of such advertising does not guarantee lower smoking rates among teenagers.
This draws a reliable conclusion from the evidence. Since Norway banned tobacco advertising in 1975 but still has teen smoking rates that are 'at least as prevalent' as countries with advertising, we can logically conclude that tobacco advertising cannot be the only factor affecting teen smoking rates. If it were the only factor, Norway should have dramatically lower rates. This is a measured conclusion that doesn't overreach beyond what the evidence supports.
This goes too far. The evidence shows that a ban on advertising didn't eliminate the problem, but this doesn't prove that advertising plays no role whatsoever. There could be other factors that maintain high smoking rates in Norway despite the advertising ban, while advertising might still contribute to smoking rates in other countries. The evidence doesn't support such an absolute conclusion.
This is too broad and absolute. The passage only discusses teenager smoking rates, not overall tobacco consumption. Additionally, we don't know what Norway's smoking rates were before the ban or immediately after - we only know current comparative rates. We can't reliably conclude that banning advertising has no effect on consumption in general.
This directly contradicts the evidence. The passage states that Norwegian teenagers smoke 'at least as' much as teenagers in countries with advertising, meaning equal or higher rates. This choice suggests Norwegian teens smoke more, which goes beyond what 'at least as prevalent' tells us, and certainly doesn't suggest a reliable pattern.
This makes assumptions about historical data that we don't have. The passage doesn't provide information about smoking rates in 1975 or what happened immediately after the ban was implemented. We can't reliably conclude anything about the behavior of specific individuals who were smoking when the ban started.