Question

The town of San Leonardo has recently enacted a law banning smoking in all restaurants within town limits. Since many smokers who normally dine in San Leonardo's restaurants will not want to refrain from smoking during their meals, San Leonardo's restaurants will undoubtedly lose many patrons and considerable income.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the argument above?

• A. Most residents of San Leonardo who eat in restaurants are not smokers.
• B. Most smokers who dine in the company of non-smokers are willing to refrain from smoking during their meals.
• C. If the law banning smoking in restaurants had not been enacted, it is likely that a more stringent law banning smoking in all public places in San Leonardo would have been enacted instead.
• D. Prior to the enactment of the law banning smoking in San Leonardo's restaurant, the town had a law that required most restaurants to have nonsmoking sections.
• E. None of the other communities adjacent to San Leonardo, which have restaurants comparable to those of San Leonardo, has enacted and enforces any antismoking legislation.

Hint:

When an argument predicts a change in customer behavior, strengthening it often involves showing that customers have both the motive (unhappiness with the new rule) and the opportunity (a viable alternative) to change their behavior.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a "strengthen the argument" question. The argument concludes that a smoking ban in San Leonardo's restaurants will cause them to lose patrons and income. The reason given is that smokers will not want to refrain from smoking.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
To strengthen this argument, we need to provide evidence that the smokers who are unwilling to refrain from smoking have a viable alternative that would lead them to abandon San Leonardo's restaurants. The argument assumes these patrons will go elsewhere rather than comply. We need to support this assumption.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
- The core of the argument is that smokers will choose to stop dining in San Leonardo rather than give up smoking with their meals.
- (A) This would weaken the argument. If most patrons are non-smokers, the loss of some smokers might have a smaller impact, and could even be offset by an increase in non-smoking patrons who prefer a smoke-free environment.
- (B) This directly weakens the argument by stating that smokers are often willing to refrain, contradicting the argument's main premise.
- (C) This is irrelevant. A hypothetical alternative law does not affect the outcome of the actual law.
- (D) This is irrelevant. The existence of non-smoking sections before doesn't change the impact of a total ban.
- (E) This provides the key piece of information. If adjacent towns have comparable restaurants and no smoking bans, it gives the unhappy smokers a perfect, convenient alternative. They can simply drive to a neighboring town to eat and smoke. This makes it much more likely that they will actually leave San Leonardo's restaurants, thus strengthening the conclusion that the restaurants will lose patrons and income.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The existence of a convenient, unrestricted alternative (restaurants in adjacent towns) makes it much more probable that smokers will take their business elsewhere, thus strengthening the prediction of lost income.