#1 - Educational television is a contradiction in terms. Whi

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (B)

The stimulus author is here trying to support the claim that television cannot be educational by showing all of the ways that television is different from a school classroom. In order to make such a claim, it must be assumed that in order for experiences to be educational, they must not differ from the school classroom experience.

Answer Choice (A): The stimulus clearly allows for the existence of fun in the classroom experience by stating that fun is a means to an end. Therefore, this cannot be an assumption on which the argument is based.

Answer Choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Using the assumption negation technique, if some experiences that do not closely resemble what takes place in the school environment can be educational, the stimulus conclusion would be attacked.

Answer Choice (C): If anything, this answer choice would weaken the argument of the stimulus. The stimulus is basically attacking television as having no educational value or relationship to the school environment whatsoever.

Answer Choice (D): No, the stimulus is stating that, inherently, television can have no educational value regardless of the type of programming being produced.

Answer Choice (E): Again, the stimulus is basically attacking the ability of television to serve as an educational tool in any way, shape, or form. There is no assumption in the argument that there may be some type of potential for television to serve any educational purpose.

[quiz555]

My question involves question 14, lesson 9HW from the Virtual Course book.

Conclusion reads: Educational television is a contradiction in terms.

Answer choice E reads: the potential of television as a powerful learning tool has not yet been realized.

When I negate this I get: the potential of television as a powerful learning tool has been realized.

Wouldn't this dismiss the aforementioned conclusion and thereby present itself as the correct answer choice?

Please help, thanks...

[Nikki Siclunov]

There is no evidence to suggest that the author's conclusion depends on the statement, "The potential of television as a powerful learning tool has not yet been realized." This implies that television does have the potential to be a powerful learning tool, though such potential has not yet been realized. By calling educational television a "contradiction in terms," the author clearly rejects the notion that television has any potential to be educational. Therefore, it is unrealistic to suspect that (E) is an assumption.

The logical opposite of answer choice (E) does not weaken the conclusion as much as state a claim that cannot be true given the evidence provided.

[quiz555]

So if I said to someone that X has absolutely no potential, and someone subsequently brings forward a true proposition that said that X's potential has already been realized, my proposition is not weakened?

[Nikki Siclunov]

This proposition would contradict my conclusion that television has no educational potential, without bringing any additional evidence to convince me that my conclusion is false.

Answer choice (E) in this question may well be a true statement that can be proven by referring to the stimulus: if television has absolutely no educational potential, then such potential has not been (and never will be) realized, as it does not exist. However, this is not a Must Be True question. An assumption is something the conclusion depends on, not something that can easily be inferred from the conclusion.

[quiz555]

But if the answer choice is true (second family) and certainly contradicts the conclusion, then doesn't it show that the conclusion is false? I didn't know correct answer choices are supposed to bring additional evidence to convince that the conclusion for an assumption question is false.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Yes, they do. By your logic, a conclusion would also be its own assumption, since the logical opposite of the conclusion would weaken it. However, just because two things are in contradiction does not necessarily mean that the latter weakens the former. To weaken an argument, you need to establish that the premises are not sufficient to establish the conclusion.

[quiz555]

Even if the statement that contradicts it is TRUE, it still wouldn't weaken it by showing that the two statements cannot possibly co-exists and thereby eliminating the statement that hasn't been deemed true?

My reasoning is that, if a conclusion is asserted, and that conclusion is subsequently contradicted by a TRUE statement, then, at least for me, that aforementioned conclusion is weakened since both cannot co-exists and one is already deemed true...

If I say that all apples are red, and an omnipotent being who cannot possibly be wrong states that some apples are green, then shouldn't that statement at the very least weaken my claim/conclusion?

I really do apologize for belaboring this issue, but I feel as though it would help me significantly improve my understanding of the negation technique...

[Nikki Siclunov]

Technically, you're correct - any argument assumes that its conclusion is true, and the logical opposite of the conclusion will contradict said conclusion. That does not mean, however, that the conclusion is also an assumption for the argument - such a notion would be almost tautological. By your logic, any inference, the logical opposite of which would clearly contradict the conclusion of the argument, would qualify as an assumption.

Virtually all assumptions upon which you are tested will fall into 2 different categories: Supporter and Defender. If the answer you select performs neither of these functions, it will be incorrect. If a particular answer merely restates the conclusion or identifies an inference that must be true based on the information provided in the stimulus, it will be incorrect. Also, assumptions will not introduce new elements into the argument (such as the temporal idea of whether the real potential of TV has or has not yet been realized, since the author rejects the very idea that such a potential even exists).

Let me give you another example:

Conclusion: We cannot prove the existence of God.

Do you think that my argument assumes the following statement:

"So far, scientists have been unable to prove the existence of God."

The answer is no: this is an inference that can be drawn from my conclusion, but it is not an assumption of the argument, since it is not a statement upon which the argument depends.

[quiz555]

I believe I have not conveyed that properly; I was not talking about the conclusion of the argument being true, rather, I was talking about the answer choices being asserted as true (which I don't think qualify as arguments). Since the answer choice that contradicts is true, then the contradicted conclusion in the stimulus that has not been proven true is, at least very least, weakened.

Say in your example: if I negated that last statement--Scientists have already proved the existence of God--and asserted it as a TRUE statement that could not possibly be false, then, to me, that aforementioned conclusion cannot exist since the latter statement is asserted as true.

I can see how it is not necessarily dependent. But my question is more about the Negation Technique. Say for instance I am down to two answer choices for an assumption question and I employ the Negation Technique. According to my understanding, when the Negation Technique is employed, the conclusion does not and absolutely cannot exist as a true statement.

When I negated that answer choice, it clearly established a contradiction against the stimulus' conclusion. And, since the answer choices are TRUE, I deemed it as the correct answer.

In retrospect, I do see how it is not the answer before employing the technique, but I do not see how it is not after employing it....Any suggestions?

:|
Sorry again...