Columnist: Research shows significant reductions in the number of people smoking, and especially in the number of first-time smokers in those countries that have imposed stringent restrictions on tobacco advertising. This provides substantial grounds for disputing tobacco companies’ claims that advertising has no significant causal impact on the tendency to smoke.

Summarize Argument

The columnist concludes that, contrary to what tobacco companies claim, advertising indeed has an effect on smoking habits. As evidence, she cites research showing that countries with the strictest tobacco advertising laws also have the greatest reduction in the number of people who smoke.

Notable Assumptions

Based on a correlation between tobacco advertising laws and smoking rates, the author assumes that the former causes the latter. This means the author doesn’t believe the relationship is the inverse (i.e. decreasing rates of smoking cause stringent tobacco advertising laws), or that some third factor (i.e. health campaigns, social attitudes) aren’t responsible for both strict tobacco advertising laws and declining smoking rates.

A
People who smoke are unlikely to quit merely because they are no longer exposed to tobacco advertising.

While the author indeed claims that countries with stringent advertising laws see a decline in smoking, she specifies that decline is most prominent among first-time smokers. Even if current smokers didn’t quit due to the laws, would-be smokers were deterred.

B
Broadcast media tend to have stricter restrictions on tobacco advertising than do print media.

We don’t care which sort of media is strictest. We’re trying to weaken the causal relationship between advertising laws and smoking rates.

C
Restrictions on tobacco advertising are imposed only in countries where a negative attitude toward tobacco use is already widespread and increasing.

This adds a third factor that isn’t smoking rates or advertising laws. Negative attitudes towards tobacco use cause a decline in smoking and strict tobacco laws.

D
Most people who begin smoking during adolescence continue to smoke throughout their lives.

Like (A), this tells us many people don’t quit. That’s fine—the laws still have an effect on first-time smokers, as well as perhaps some long-time ones.

E
People who are largely unaffected by tobacco advertising tend to be unaffected by other kinds of advertising as well.

We have no idea what percentage of people are unaffected by tobacco advertising. This could weaken if most people were unaffected by tobacco advertising, but we don’t have that information.


10 comments

Actor: Bertolt Brecht’s plays are not genuinely successful dramas. The roles in Brecht’s plays express such incongruous motives and beliefs that audiences, as well as the actors playing the roles, invariably find it difficult, at best, to discern any of the characters’ personalities. But, for a play to succeed as a drama, audiences must care what happens to at least some of its characters.

Summary
The author concludes that Bercht’s plays are not genuinely successful dramas. This is based on the following:
In Brecht’s plays, the audiences and actors find it difficult to discern any of the characters’ personalities.
In order to be a successful drama, audiences must care what happens to at least some of the characters.

Missing Connection
We have a premise that tells us what’s required to be a successful drama — audiences must care about at least one character’s personality. So if we can show that for Brecht’s plays, audiences do not care about any of its characters, we can prove that Brecht’s plays are not successful dramas.
The other premise tells us that audiences/actors find it difficult to discern characters’ personalities in Brecht’s plays. If we can show that this difficulty in discerning characters’ personalities implies that audiences won’t care about the characters, that would provide the missing link.

A
An audience that cannot readily discern a character’s personality will not take any interest in that character.
In connection with the premises, (A) establishes that audiences don’t take any interest in the characters in Brecht’s plays. This implies that they won’t care about what happens to those characters, which in turn allows us to conclude that Brecht’s plays are not successful dramas.
B
A character’s personality is determined primarily by the motives and beliefs of that character.
The issue is whether audience’s difficulty in discerning the characters’ personalities implies an audience doesn’t care about the characters. What determines the characters’ personality is irrelevant.
C
The extent to which a play succeeds as a drama is directly proportional to the extent to which the play’s audiences care about its characters.
We already have as a premise the idea that succeeding as a drama requires that the audience cares about at least some of the plays’ characters. What’s missing is that we don’t have a way of establishing that the audience does not care about any characters in Brechts’ plays. (C) doesn’t provide us with that missing piece.
D
If the personalities of a play’s characters are not readily discernible by the actors playing the roles, then those personalities are not readily discernible by the play’s audience.
We already know that the audiences of Brecht’s plays find it difficult to discern any of the characters’ personalities. What matters is the relationship between this and audiences’ caring about the characters.
E
All plays that, unlike Brecht’s plays, have characters with whom audiences empathize succeed as dramas.
(E) tells us that certain plays succeed as dramas. But we’re trying to prove that Brecht’s plays do NOT succeed as dramas.

11 comments