Critical Reasoning – Health warnings on cigarette packs Statement: Should the words “Smoking is injurious to health” essentially appear on cigarette packs? Arguments: I. Yes. Such warnings help condition smokers to realize they are inhaling harmful substances. II. No. The warning hampers the enjoyment of smoking.
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Public-health labeling is a classic risk-communication tool. We must identify which argument offers a valid public-interest reason connected to outcomes, rather than subjective preference.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Smoking has known health risks.
- Warning labels are intended to inform and influence behavior.
- Personal “enjoyment” is a subjective factor with limited policy weight.
Concept / Approach:Strong arguments on health policy emphasize risk reduction, informed consent, and behavior change. Arguments grounded in diminished pleasure do not outweigh population-level health concerns.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Warning labels provide salience and repetition, aiding awareness and potentially reducing initiation/consumption. This is a solid public-health rationale. I is strong.Evaluate II: “Hampers enjoyment” is subjective and not a compelling public policy ground to restrict safety labeling. Hence, II is weak.Verification / Alternative check:Even without empirical data cited, the logic of risk communication remains sound and widely practiced globally, supporting I’s strength.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Any option endorsing II gives weight to personal enjoyment over public health.
- “Either/Neither/Both” do not fit because I is clearly strong.
Common Pitfalls:Equating individual preference with public-health justification.
Final Answer:Only argument I is strong