Critical Reasoning

In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?
A. During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.
B. The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.
C. Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.
D. During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.
E. During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the market than there had been during the previous year.

himu wrote:In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

Certain patterns recur regularly in CR - possibly the most common argument form is causation.

We can paraphrase this entire argument as "the increase in price is responsible for the decrease in sales".

The most common ways to strengthen a causal argument are:
1) eliminate alternative causes; and
2) provide more evidence supporting the relationship.

On this question, (B) falls into the first category of strengthener. What's another reason why sales may have dropped? Because people became more aware that cigarettes were bad for them. (B) eliminates that possibility, thereby making it more likely that the author's explanation is correct.

If we're asked to weaken a causal argument, the two most common ways to do so are:
1) suggest an alternative cause; and
2) break the link between the cause and effect (i.e. suggest that the two are unrelated).

A much less-common third way to weaken is:
3) show that the author may have cause and effect backwards.

Stuart

Thanks so much Stuart

himu wrote:In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.

1. 8 % Fed tax reduced consumption by 10%

2. Before increasing Tax consumption reduced 1%

3. Sale of Cigarettes is strongly related to after Tax Price per pack.


Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?

We simply have to support the red highlighted conclusion..


A. During the second year after the tax increase, cigarette sales increased by a significant amount.

Irrelevant , not supporting the argument...

B. The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.

Ok , this is just a general background of the scenario suggesting things remained the same except Taxation , which affected the consumption behaviour...

This can be an answer choice..

C. Most consumers were unaware that the tax on cigarettes was going to increase.

So ? What does it result in , consumption of cigarettes decreased and this option provides no connection ...

D. During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.

This is weakening the argument , suggesting that something else was responsible for the decline in sale of Cigarettes , other than Taxation...

This option can be rejected.

E. During the year after the tax increase, there was a greater variety of cigarettes on the market than there had been during the previous year.

Out of scope ...[/u]