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.

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:

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