#16 - Evidently, watching too much television can lead

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

Since the key to weakening an LSAT argument is to focus on the conclusion, it is essential to break down the argument, which is structured as follows:

• Premise: People are more likely to think that they will be victims of a natural disaster if they watch an above-average amount of television than if they do not.
  
  Conclusion: Watching too much television can lead people to overestimate the risks that the world poses to them.

The conclusion is the first sentence in the stimulus, as shown by the conclusion indicator “evidently.” The author argues that there is a causal relationship between watching too much television and overestimating the risks we are exposed to, because a correlation has been found between the two:

• Cause Effect
  
  Too much TV Overestimate risks posed

Typically, whenever we encounter a causal conclusion supported by a correlation, we try to attack the argument by showing that the correlation might be attributable to a third, independent factor that causes both sides to occur simultaneously. Alternatively, we can argue that the causal relationship is reversed (what if worrying about natural disasters makes us more likely to stay glued to the television?).

This argument is also guilty of yet another—perhaps more damning—flaw. The study reveals that those who watch an above-average amount of television tend to believe that they will be victims of a natural disaster. That does not mean that they necessarily overestimate that risk. The conclusion suggests that such people have an inaccurate idea of the likelihood that they will falls victims of a natural disaster, but what if their fears are justified? Imagine living in Florida, where hurricanes hit once every few years. Even if Floridians watch an above-average amount of television, their fears would be justified regardless of whether such fears are reinforced by watching TV. In other words, Floridians would not be overestimating the risks that the world poses to them.

Answer choice (A): The conclusion is consistent with the notion that many people overestimate the degree of risk they are exposed to regardless of how much television they watch. A situation in which the effect occurs without the cause only shows that the cause is not necessary for the effect to occur. The author never claimed that only those who watch too much TV are prone to worrying about the world.

Answer choice (B): This is the Opposite answer choice. If those who watch a lot of television tend to live in areas that are less prone to natural disasters, we would expect them to worry less about becoming victims of a natural disaster. The study reveals, however, that they worry more about such risks. Clearly, then, these people must be overestimating the degree of risk they are exposed to, which corroborates the observation made in the conclusion.

Answer choice (C): If people who watch a below-average amount of television tend to assess accurately the likelihood of falling victim to a natural disaster, this would corroborate the theory that those who watch an above-average amount of television are inaccurate in their assessment. This lends only a moderate support to the causal conclusion, but it clearly does not weaken it.

Answer choice (D): This is another Opposite answer choice. If not watching TV makes us better able to assess accurately the risks posed by natural disasters, this would be an example of a situation in which the cause is not present, and the effect is not present. This corroborates the theory that watching too much television can lead us to assess inaccurately the likelihood that we would fall victim to a natural disaster, strengthening the conclusion of the argument.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. If watching too much TV and living in an area prone to natural disasters correlate, this would explain why those who watch too much TV also fear natural disasters. Rather than overestimating the risks that the world poses to them, such people are probably justified in their beliefs—a possibility that immediately weakens the conclusion. This answer choice also presents an alternate interpretation of the correlation described in the study—television does not necessarily cause people to fear natural disasters. Natural disasters do!

[smile22]

For this question. I incorrectly selected A. I think that this question is causal: watching an above ave amount of TV leads ppl to overestimate the risks posed to them. Does E weaken the stimulus because it's stating that watching TV is an effect and not a cause?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Smile,

It seems like you were on the right track with figuring this one out. E shows that living in an area prone to natural disasters is the real cause of thinking you will be a victim of a natural disaster (rather than watching TV). It weakens the argument by providing an alternative causal explanation.

Does that help?

Emily

[smile22]

Thank you for your explanation!

[actionjackson]

Hi Smile,

It seems like you were on the right track with figuring this one out. E shows that living in an area prone to natural disasters is the real cause of thinking you will be a victim of a natural disaster (rather than watching TV). It weakens the argument by providing an alternative causal explanation.

Does that help?

Emily

I also recognized the causal reasoning present in the stimulus for this question, and I also incorrectly chose answer choice A having narrowed down my choices to both A and E. I'm having a little difficulty determining why A is incorrect. Answer choice A seems to be providing the purported effect without the purported cause, one of the ways we weaken causality. I identified the first sentence of this stimulus as the conclusion, and diagrammed the causal reasoning:

TMTV OER

TMTV= Too much TV
OER= Overestimate risks the world poses

Is that not the conclusion of this argument? Is my identification of the causal reasoning incorrect? I'm not really seeing why E weakens this stimuli it doesn't seem to me like it's describing an alternate cause.

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E is an example of a reversed causal relationship, actionjackson - instead of TV causing you to overestimate the risks, being in an especially risky place causes you to watch more TV. While the answer doesn't explain why, you can imagine that it might have something to do with watching the Weather Channel and a lot of news. Or, perhaps folks who correctly estimate that the risks of a natural disaster are high watch more TV as a way of escaping their dangerous reality for a bit. Or maybe they just want to watch as much as they can before the earthquake swallows them all up.

Answer A does have a bit of an "effect without cause" feel to it, but it's pretty weak. First, it only tells us about "many" people. How many? Is it a majority? Hard to say. Are people more likely to overestimate the risks when they watch more TV? Answer A doesn't address that.

Ultimately, it's not that A is wrong, but that E is better because it does more clear and present damage to the argument. It does this by completely undermining the value of the study, which was the only support for the conclusion. Without that study, there's no reason to believe the conclusion, and the argument falls completely apart.

Remember, it's never about picking the "right" answer, but always about picking the best answer.

Hope that helps!

[nutcracker]

Hi,

I recall from the Logical Reasoning Bible that, in a cause and effect argument in LSAT logic, a cause is the only cause of an effect, and that the cause always produces the effect.

If that is the case, the situation described in answer choice (A) where the cause is absent while the effect is present seems to weaken the cause and effect argument to a considerable degree. Is (A) not the best answer choice because the "can" in the first sentence qualifies the cause and effect relationship? If instead the conclusion goes "watching too much television leads people to overestimate the risks...", would answer choice (A) be a good weakener? Thank you very much!

[James Finch]

Hi Nutcracker,

The conclusion in the stimulus, by qualifying its scope with "can," is saying that watching too much TV is one possible cause of overestimating risks. It doesn't exclude the possibility that other causes can also lead to the same effect, so we can't use the idea of TV being the sole cause of the effect here to automatically choose an answer, since the stimulus isn't claiming that.

The issue with (A) is that its scope is so broad as to render it meaningless to the conclusion in the stimulus. If many people overestimate the dangers regardless of the amount of TV they watch, all that means is that there are other potential causes for overestimating risk than TV. But the conclusion in the stimulus, by using "can," has already accounted for that possibility, so (A) doesn't weaken it.

Hope this makes things clear!

[askuwheteau@protonmail.com]

I had chosen answer choice A initially. Here's my reasoning based upon a careful re-reading of the passage:
NI means no impact (strengthening or weakening, respectively)

A. A: NI (Bypasses the levels of TV argument….& doesn’t weaken when personalized)

B: Strengthens

C: NI (OoS…below average levels of TV viewing aren’t discussed in the passage and thus doesn’t weaken)

D: NI (Also bypasses the levels of TV argument)

E: Weakens (via reversed cause-effect)

[Dana D]

Hey there,

The only thing I would add is that for answer choice (E), it is showing an alternative cause rather than a reversed relationship. Reversed C+E relationship would be saying that the increased belief that they will be a victim of natural disaster increased television watching. Instead, answer choice (E) is showing an alternative cause for why people believe they will be victims - it's not TV, it's because they live in areas where they are more prone to natural disasters.

Good job!