Q9 - That long-term cigarette smoking

[soyeonjeon]

Why would A be incorrect?

I debated between A and E but chose A.
Thanks for your help.

[tommywallach]

Hey Soyeon,

This question really requires you to be logical. Let's start by focusing on the core:

Conclusion: Cigarette companies shouldn't be held morally responsible
Premise: Candy companies aren't held morally responsible, and their product gives people cavities

If you just think about this, the assumption is obvious. The author is assuming that getting cavities is the same as getting cancer and lung disease.

Answer choice (A) accuses the author not proving that tooth decay is caused by eating candy. But he doesn't need to prove it. He calls the facts about cigarettes "scientifically well-established" and the facts about candy "undeniable". So both facts are solid. The main issue is that the negative consequences of candy and cigarettes aren't comparable.

Hope that helps!

-t

[jdoe115]

This is where I am confused; I understand why A-D are wrong, but other than that, I do not understand why E is correct.

Wouldn't correctly choosing E as the correct answer necessarily assume that given A causes a problem, A is morally and legally responsible only if that problem is significant enough?

That is to say, responsibility should not change due to the severity of the effect. The argument claims that A causes B, and it is known that B is a problem. It draws its conclusion - that A is not responsible for B - on the analogy that C causes D, (D also a problem) but C is not responsible for D. I don't see how the severity of the problem (except to the extent that there IS a problem) affects the analogy.

Thanks!

[a8l367]

T I don't see how the severity of the problem (except to the extent that there IS a problem) affects the analogy.

Thanks!

Same question. Could someone clarify?

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me put up an #officialexplanation for this one.

QUESTION TYPE
Flaw

STIMULUS
Conclusion: You can accept that long-term smoking leads to cancer/lung disease while still rejecting the idea that tobacco companies should be held legally responsible for that.

Evidence: Long-term candy eating leads to tooth decay, but everyone would reject that candy manufacturers should be held legally responsible for that.

ANSWER ANTICIPATION:
This is an argument by Analogy.
We strengthen these arguments by pointing to more relevant similarities.
We weaken these arguments by pointing out a meaningful difference.

The flaw is likely something to the effect of "the author is assuming that cigarettes and candy are fair to compare, when they aren't necessarily".

CORRECT ANSWER:
E

ANSWER CHOICES:
(A) No, that part of the analogy felt equivalent. The author didn't say "scientifically" in the case of candy's connection to tooth decay, but the author did say it 'undeniably' leads to tooth decay. The connection between cigs and cancer is well-established fact. The connection between candy and tooth decay is undeniable. That language lines up fine.

(B) The author does not need to make the extreme and out of scope assumption that "EVERYONE who gets cavities got them from too much candy"

(C) I've never seen a correct answer on Flaw be about the definition of a term. An author might use the same term in two different ways (that's the famous flaw called Equivocation / Shifting Meanings), but the lack of an adequately precise definition of terms is almost never a problem with the reasoning move.

(D) That phrase in the conclusion is total filler. It doesn't change the argument one way or the other whether everyone already agrees with the author or whether many people believe the contrary of her conclusion. So it certainly doesn't matter who these people are.

(E) YES, this tries to punch back at the analogy. Maybe we have different thoughts about moral and legal culpability when the stakes go from tooth decay to cancer / lung disease. That would make the author's analogy seem like an inappropriate one to rely on.

TAKEAWAYS:
When an argument is based on a Comparison / Analogy,
strengthen with more relevant similarities,
weaken with some significant difference.