"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why were children who watched programs with an average violence rating of “three” or higher 50 percent more likely to have been disciplined in school than other children?
Objective
The correct answer must be the only answer that doesn’t help to explain why children who watched television programs with a violence rating of “three” or higher were 50 percent more likely to be disciplined in school. The correct answer choice could fail to address the relationship between the violence levels of television programs and the rate at which children who watch them are disciplined in school or could provide information that only makes the phenomenon more confusing.
A
Children who are excited by violent action programs on television tend to become bored with schoolwork and to express their boredom in an unacceptable fashion.
Children excited by violent action are probably more likely to watch more violent television programs than other children. In turn, they’re more likely to become bored with their schoolwork and express their boredom in unacceptable ways that can be disciplined in school.
B
When parents watch violent programs on television with their children, those children become more likely to regard antisocial behavior as legitimate.
Children who watch violent programs with their parents are probably more likely to watch violent programs with violence ratings of “three” or higher. Therefore, these children are more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior in school and be disciplined for it.
C
Parents who rated their children’s television viewing low on violence had become desensitized to the violence on television by watching too much of it.
(C) is silent on the subject of children’s discipline or behavior, so it fails to offer any connection between violence ratings and the rate at which children are disciplined in school. It just comments on how some parents rate the violence levels of programs.
D
Children learn from violent programs on television to disrespect society’s prohibitions of violence and, as a result, are more likely than other children to disrespect the school disciplinary codes.
If this is true, then children who watch programs with an average violence rating of “three” or higher are more likely to learn to disrespect society’s prohibitions of violence and disregard school disciplinary codes, resulting in them being disciplined more frequently in school.
E
Parents who do not allow their children to watch programs with a high level of violence are more likely than other parents to be careful about other aspects of their children’s behavior.
If this is true, then children who aren’t allowed to watch highly violent television programs are probably more likely than other children to respect various disciplinary rules at school, resulting in them being disciplined less frequently at school.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that reporters’ personal biases affected news coverage of an election. Why? Because most of them voted for the incumbent, and there was less negative coverage of the incumbent than the challenger.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The basis for the author’s conclusion is that reporters devoted more negative coverage to the challenger than the incumbent. But what if the challenger deserved more negative coverage than the incumbent? If that were the case, the media would be devoting more negative coverage to the challenger, even if reporters were completely unbiased.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that both candidates received equal amounts of coverage overall
The author never presumes this: his argument is about the ratio of positive/negative coverage for each candidate, not the total amount of coverage (e.g. number of newspaper articles) they received. The ratio isn’t affected by the total.
B
ignores the possibility that there was more negative news worthy of reporting concerning the challenger than there was concerning the incumbent
If this were the case, reporters might devote more negative coverage to the challenger than the incumbent—even if they’re completely unbiased. This undermines the author’s conclusion that the discrepancy in negative coverage is evidence of bias.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that allowing biases to influence reporting is always detrimental to the resulting news coverage
The author doesn’t presume this: he’s alleging the existence of bias, not making a value judgment about its effects.
D
ignores the possibility that the electorate’s voting behavior is not significantly affected by the content of coverage of candidates
The conclusion is about bias in news coverage itself; the potential effects of news coverage on voting are irrelevant. We’re looking for factors that affect coverage, not factors that coverage affects.
E
ignores the possibility that reporters generally fear losing access to incumbents more than they fear losing access to challengers
If this were true, it would, if anything, support the author’s argument: it suggests that reporters would be biased against challengers.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there is no reason to make dietary changes for the sake of preventing heart disease. Why? Because one potential cause of heart disease, lipoprotein(a), isn’t affected by (some) dietary changes. Specifically, dietary changes that lower cholesterol, which we know can lead to heart disease.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that dietary changes don’t prevent heart disease, but his only support is that they don’t lower lipoprotein(a) levels. What if there were another cause of heart disease that dietary changes could reduce?
In fact, the author already gave us a good candidate for this: cholesterol, which has been associated with heart disease. And which, the author tells us, dietary changes can affect.
In fact, the author already gave us a good candidate for this: cholesterol, which has been associated with heart disease. And which, the author tells us, dietary changes can affect.
A
It fails to consider the possibility that lipoprotein(a) raises cholesterol levels.
We have no reason to believe that this is true. But suppose it were: reducing lipoprotein(a) could reduce cholesterol, which would reduce the risk of heart disease. But we already know that we could make dietary changes that reduce cholesterol (the actual flaw in the argument).
B
It provides no evidence for a link between lipoprotein(a) and heart disease.
Suppose there is a link between lipoprotein(a) and heart disease. Dietary changes might not reduce the risk from lipoprotein(a). But what about other potential causes of heart disease—like cholesterol? Diet could potentially reduce those. The argument still has a major flaw.
C
It presents but ignores evidence that, for some people, high cholesterol contributes to heart disease.
The author presents evidence that high cholesterol contributes to heart disease—namely, that the two have been associated. (Note, this is evidence, not definitive proof.) The author then ignores the possibility that a low cholesterol diet could prevent heart disease.
D
It fails to consider the possibility that poor diets cause some people to develop health problems other than heart disease.
The conclusion is about the effect of diet on heart disease, so other health problems are irrelevant.
E
It offers no explanation for why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease.
The conclusion is about the effect of diet on heart disease, so why some people with high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease is irrelevant.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
OPA: Some argue that certain actions are morally obligatory because not acting in that way would be unnatural.
Conclusion: But that’s absurd, i.e., the argument’s logic is absurd.
Premise: An “unnatural action” is either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly. Violating the laws of nature is impossible. A statistical anomaly is simply something uncommon, and that is not a good reason to avoid doing it.
Conclusion: But that’s absurd, i.e., the argument’s logic is absurd.
Premise: An “unnatural action” is either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly. Violating the laws of nature is impossible. A statistical anomaly is simply something uncommon, and that is not a good reason to avoid doing it.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Author shows that a key concept (”unnatural”) in OP’s premise can only mean two things, neither of which supports OP’s conclusion. Hence, OP’s conclusion is unsupported.
A
undermining a concept by showing that its acceptance would violate a law of nature
Descriptively inaccurate. The only concept the author can arguably be said to be undermining is the concept of “unnatural.” Yet the author does not show that accepting the concept of “unnatural” would violate a law of nature. Instead, the author shows that “unnatural” can only have two meanings, neither of which supports the OP’s conclusion.
B
stating the definition of a key term of the argument
Descriptively accurate. Author states the definition of “unnatural.”
C
using statistical findings to dispute a claim
Descriptively inaccurate. There is a difference between defining a concept as a “statistical anomaly” (which the author does) versus using a statistical finding (which the author does not do). A statistical finding would be, e.g., car accidents decreased 10% last year.
D
undermining a claim by showing that the claim is self-contradictory
Descriptively inaccurate. There is a difference between stating that some “unnatural” actions are impossible to perform because they violate the laws of nature (which the author does) versus showing that the concept of “unnatural” is self-contradictory (which the author does not do).
E
using empirical evidence to support one definition of a key term of the argument over another
Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not use empirical evidence—evidence gathered by observation or experimentation—to support anything. Example of empirical evidence could be a statistical finding that, say, car accidents decreased 10% last year.
Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public’s scientific understanding. But these predictions are baseless. Throughout recorded history, dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that programs that emphasize paranormal incidents will not impede the public’s scientific understanding. This is based on the fact that throughout history, story-tellers have told stories involving paranormal elements, but the public’s scientific understanding has steadily advanced during this time.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paranormal stories have impeded (meaning, obstructed or hindered) the public’s understanding of science, even if they haven’t completely stopped advancement of that understanding. Something can still advance while being impeded.
A
It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by another phenomenon.
The author fails to consider that the public’s understanding of science can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by paranormal stories. This is why the author’s premise does not establish that TV shows about paranormal incidents won’t impede understanding.
B
It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected.
The author does not assume that correlation proves cause. The author’s conclusion does not assert cause or rely on an assumption of cause. In fact, the author asserts that one thing (paranormal stories) does not cause another thing (impeding of understanding).
C
It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former does not impede the latter.
The conclusion is that one thing does not impede another thing. Pointing out a failure to consider what could be true “even if [one thing] does not impede [another thing]” does not show why the argument is weak. Any weakness must relate to why one thing can impede another thing.
D
It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not also affect the former.
The author does not overlook the possibility that a causal relationship is also reversed. The author does not, for example, assert that paranormal stories can’t affect public understanding because public understanding has affected paranormal stories.
E
It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former.
The contention is that paranormal TV shows impede scientific understanding. The author believes this is baseless. But the author does not cite to the fact that the impeding of scientific understanding has persisted despite increases in the pervasiveness of paranormal stories.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that last year’s 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime was caused by the new mandatory sentencing law. This is because the law was passed at the beginning of last year, and no other major policy changes were made last year.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there was no alternate cause of the decreased crime rate. (Even though there were no other major policy changes last year, the crime rate could have decreased for some other reason that wasn’t a policy change, or from a policy change enacted before last year.)
A
Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and decreased crime rates.
We have no idea whether the author’s city had improved economic conditions. So, (A) doesn’t act as an alternate explanation for the decreased violent crime rate.
B
Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
The mandatory sentencing law required prison time for all violent criminals. We have no idea whether the “unusually harsh penalties for some crimes” involved prison time for violent crimes.
C
Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only 5 percent.
We know the violent crime rate decreased by 15 percent, which is higher than 5 percent. (C) helps support the theory that the decreased crime rate can’t be explained by a general decrease in crime.
D
At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes not previously classified as “violent.”
This strengthens the argument, because broadening the definition of “violent crime” would lead us to expect an increase in violent crime. This helps eliminate the explanation that the decreased violent crime rate was caused by a narrowing of the definition of violent crime.
E
The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each of the 3 subsequent years.
This provides a potential alternate explanation for the decreased violent crime. (E) describes a policy change that was made prior to last year, but continued to have effects into last year. It’s reasonable to think increased numbers of police officers could reduce violent crime.