Loading...
Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem in Country X, and since addiction to nicotine prevents many people from quitting smoking, the government of Country X plans to reduce the maximum allowable quantity of nicotine per cigarette by half over the next five years. However, reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes. Therefore, implementing this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking-related illnesses.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument about the consequences of implementing the Country X government's plan?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Since smoking-related illnesses are a serious health problem in Country X, and since addiction to nicotine prevents many people from quitting smoking |
|
| the government of Country X plans to reduce the maximum allowable quantity of nicotine per cigarette by half over the next five years |
|
| However, reducing the quantity of nicotine per cigarette will probably cause people addicted to nicotine to smoke more cigarettes |
|
| Therefore, implementing this plan is unlikely to reduce the incidence of smoking-related illnesses |
|
"The argument starts by acknowledging a real problem (smoking-related illnesses and nicotine addiction), then presents the government's proposed solution (reducing nicotine content), but immediately challenges this solution by suggesting it will backfire (people will just smoke more cigarettes), leading to the conclusion that the plan won't work."
"The government's plan to reduce nicotine content in cigarettes is unlikely to reduce smoking-related illnesses."
"This is a 'plan will backfire' argument structure. The author accepts that there's a problem but argues the proposed solution will have unintended consequences that defeat its purpose. The logic flows: Problem exists → Solution proposed → Solution will cause compensatory behavior → Therefore solution won't solve the original problem."
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the author's conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that reducing nicotine per cigarette won't actually reduce smoking-related illnesses.
The key claim is about quantity and activity - that people will smoke MORE cigarettes when each cigarette has LESS nicotine, and this increased smoking activity will prevent the reduction of smoking-related illnesses.
We need to support the logic that lower nicotine per cigarette leads to more total cigarettes smoked, which maintains or increases health risks. We should look for evidence that confirms this compensatory smoking behavior actually happens, or that shows why more cigarettes (even with less nicotine each) still causes the same health problems.
This tells us that over half of nonsmoking adults previously smoked, but this historical information doesn't help us understand whether reducing nicotine per cigarette will cause people to smoke more cigarettes or whether this will affect smoking-related illnesses. This choice is about past smoking patterns of people who no longer smoke, which is irrelevant to the argument about current addicted smokers' likely behavior under the new plan.
This choice discusses how cigarette brands will become more similar in nicotine content under the plan. While this might be a consequence of standardizing nicotine levels, it doesn't strengthen the argument that people will smoke more cigarettes or that smoking-related illnesses won't decrease. Brand similarity in nicotine content doesn't address the core logic about compensatory smoking behavior or health outcomes.
The availability of nicotine alternatives like gum and patches would actually weaken the argument rather than strengthen it. If people have access to inexpensive, smoke-free nicotine sources, they might use these instead of smoking more cigarettes when nicotine content is reduced. This would support the government's plan rather than the author's criticism of it.
While this establishes that smokers already spend a large portion of income on cigarettes, it doesn't directly support the argument that they'll smoke more when nicotine is reduced. If anything, financial constraints might limit their ability to smoke significantly more cigarettes, which could weaken rather than strengthen the argument.
This directly strengthens the argument by explaining why smoking more cigarettes (even with less nicotine each) will maintain health risks. If tar, not nicotine, is the main cause of smoking-related illnesses, then when people smoke more cigarettes to compensate for lower nicotine, they'll be exposed to more tar overall. This supports the conclusion that the government's plan won't reduce smoking-related illnesses because the harmful substance (tar) intake will remain the same or increase.