Passage Summary: The smoker responds to a proposed cigarette tax by pointing out that if we followed that logic, we would also have to tax people who eat junk food, which everyone agrees would be ridiculous.

Conclusion: The politician's proposal to tax smokers is unreasonable or inconsistent.

Reasoning: The smoker points out that people who eat high-fat foods cause just as many health problems as smokers do, yet no one would suggest taxing them to fund the campaign.

Analysis: This is a Method of Reasoning question, so we must focus on the smoker's argumentative strategy rather than the truth of their claims. The smoker employs a counter-analogy, introducing a different group (junk food consumers) that shares the relevant characteristic (causing health problems) mentioned by the politician. By showing that applying the politician's logic to this new group leads to an 'unreasonable' conclusion, the smoker attempts to invalidate the original principle. Look for an answer that describes this technique of showing that a principle has unacceptable consequences when applied to a similar case.