#13 - A recent study reveals that television advertising

[desmail]

I do not understand why the correct answer is not B? If the preference for sweets is not a universal trait in humans, then that would mean tv advertising does have an effect, which would undermine the conclusion that tv advertising does not affect children's preferences for breakfast cereals.

Thank you!
Dana

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Dana,

Thanks for the question. Because you didn't ask about (A), I'll assume you understand how (A) weakens the argument.

In answer choice (B), there are multiple issues. The first is that the answer is extremely vague--"can be influenced" doesn't mean a whole lot, and when faced with this answer, the author could reply, "Yes, they can be influenced, but in this instance they weren't." Second, this answer can actually strengthen the argument by eliminating an alternate cause--the universality of preference for sweets in humans (if humans all share the same sweets preferences, that could explain why all children liked the sugary cereals, thus strengthening the idea that television advertising wasn't the cause).

Based on what you said in your original question, it looks like you took the "can be influenced" portion of (B) to mean that since sweet preferences aren't universal, TV must be the cause, but that interpretation goes too far.

Please let me know if that makes sense. Thanks!

[desmail]

Thanks so much!

[sotor26]

Hello,

I took the Logical reasoning (part II) of the October 2002 and had some questions regarding some of the answers:

13. Why is the answer A? I was debating between A and B, but was not sure.


Thank you so much! Any input would be great!!!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's one's a good question. Based on the fact that children preferred the same cereals whether or not they watched tv, the author concludes that advertising doesn't have much effect on their preferences. The question asks for the choice that would weaken this argument—in other words, the answer that would suggest that advertising actually does have an effect. If, as answer choice (A) provides, the tv viewers affected the non-tv viewers' habits, that suggests that the preferences of both groups could be based on tv advertising.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear—thanks!

Steve

[sotor26]

Hello Steve,

Thank you for your reply.

So B doesn't work because it is too vague/out of scope? In this case, would one choose A because it is the strongest answer out of both choices?

[Adam Tyson]

Absolutely right - A is better than B because it makes a bigger impact on the argument than B does. We are all about picking the "best" answer, per the test instructions, rather than the "right" answer or a "good" answer.

[bk1111]

Hi Dana,

Thanks for the question. Because you didn't ask about (A), I'll assume you understand how (A) weakens the argument.

In answer choice (B), there are multiple issues. The first is that the answer is extremely vague--"can be influenced" doesn't mean a whole lot, and when faced with this answer, the author could reply, "Yes, they can be influenced, but in this instance they weren't." Second, this answer can actually strengthen the argument by eliminating an alternate cause--the universality of preference for sweets in humans (if humans all share the same sweets preferences, that could explain why all children liked the sugary cereals, thus strengthening the idea that television advertising wasn't the cause).

Based on what you said in your original question, it looks like you took the "can be influenced" portion of (B) to mean that since sweet preferences aren't universal, TV must be the cause, but that interpretation goes too far.

Please let me know if that makes sense. Thanks!

Hi, I understand why A is the answer. However, I am having trouble understanding how B would strengthen the conclusion. The conclusion states that TV does NOT significantly affect children's preference. Just because a preference for sweets is not universal, how does that strengthen that TV does not affect the preferences?

Additionally, can you please explain if (D) would also strengthen the argument, and why?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Choice (B) tells us that preferring sweets is not universal. Knowing this, we should not expect all children to prefer the sugary cereal.

Furthermore, if (according to this choice) preferring sweets can be caused by factors such as exposure to TV ads, then we should expect children who watch TV to prefer sweet cereals more often. However, the two groups showed the same preference, so the TV ads must not have affected the results, but rather some other factor did.

[bk1111]

Choice (B) tells us that preferring sweets is not universal. Knowing this, we should not expect all children to prefer the sugary cereal.

Furthermore, if (according to this choice) preferring sweets can be caused by factors such as exposure to TV ads, then we should expect children who watch TV to prefer sweet cereals more often. However, the two groups showed the same preference, so the TV ads must not have affected the results, but rather some other factor did.

Thank you, this helped a lot