Passage Summary: Kendrick thinks the government has a right to ban cigarette ads because they are unhealthy, but he also thinks they should stay legal because we still allow ads for junk food.

Reasoning: Kendrick claims that while banning cigarette ads is justified by health concerns, they should remain legal as long as fatty food ads are also legal.

Analysis: We are faced with a conflict between a moral justification (protecting health) and a principle of consistency (treating similar things the same way). Kendrick admits the government *could* ban the ads, yet argues they *shouldn't* do so under current circumstances. To resolve this, we need a bridge that explains why the legal status of fatty food ads should dictate the legal status of cigarette ads, despite the health risks. Look for an answer that prioritizes legal consistency or equal treatment of 'unhealthy' products over the government's right to regulate for public health.