#19 - Jane: According to an article in this newsmagazine

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Mustafa,

This is all about the question type: Flaw questions are in the First Family, and in those you accept what the author said and you don't bring in outside info into the answer choices. You use what the author said to prove and disprove answers (which is a sort of an abstract Fact Test).

From what you said, you are treating these questions like Weaken questions, which are a very different type. In those, which are in the Third family, you can bring in outside info into the answer choices.

Totally different questions, but the good news is that if you can lock onto this idea, it will make this question type much easier.

[Adam Tyson]

It's not about coming up with the new info - you don't need to bring up any particular "what if" scenario here. It is about showing that Alan made a mistake - he failed to consider alternatives, for example, or he overstated his case. All this question is about is "what did Alan do wrong" - what he did is in the stimulus, and so in that sense no new info is required. You can spin a few "what if" ideas to help yourself grasp his mistake, but it isn't about the what ifs - it's about the mistake. He weakened the argument, but then concluded that he had destroyed the argument, and that's going too far.

Hope that clears it up!

[Mustafaabdulmalek]

Thank you it's clear now

[AspenHerman]

Hi!

I totally understand why what he is saying is wrong, but I'm still having a hard time putting those words in B.

"Alan makes an absolute conclusion without proving that Jane's argument is wrong"

How does that translate into, "confuses undermining....itself is false"?

In translated terms, the answer actually: "Alan's argument confused undermining a premise in support of a given conclusion with showing the conclusion is false"?

Aspen

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Aspen,

Let's talk about what Alan does here. Jane says that children's hand-eye coordination suffers when they watch TV, so they should limit the amount of TV their (presumed) children watch. Alan responds that hey, that study was only about kids under three, so we don't need to restrict our 8 and 10 year olds at all.

Alan's conclusion there "we don't need to restrict" is really strong. He basically says you can disregard the whole study cited by Jane. That's further than we can go. We know that the evidence isn't AS strong as Jane thinks it is, but that's different than the evidence being totally irrelevant.

So what did Alan do here? He weakened Jane's argument. What does Alan think he did? He thinks he totally destroyed it. He's standing there, dropping the mic, ready to hand his kids ALLL the TV remotes.

Does he have the right to such confidence. Heck no. Like that dude always commenting on Facebook news articles, Alan here has gone too far. That's what answer choice (B) describes. He confused weakening an argument with proving it false.

Hope that helps!

[AspenHerman]

Hi Aspen,

Let's talk about what Alan does here. Jane says that children's hand-eye coordination suffers when they watch TV, so they should limit the amount of TV their (presumed) children watch. Alan responds that hey, that study was only about kids under three, so we don't need to restrict our 8 and 10 year olds at all.

Alan's conclusion there "we don't need to restrict" is really strong. He basically says you can disregard the whole study cited by Jane. That's further than we can go. We know that the evidence isn't AS strong as Jane thinks it is, but that's different than the evidence being totally irrelevant.

So what did Alan do here? He weakened Jane's argument. What does Alan think he did? He thinks he totally destroyed it. He's standing there, dropping the mic, ready to hand his kids ALLL the TV remotes.

Does he have the right to such confidence. Heck no. Like that dude always commenting on Facebook news articles, Alan here has gone too far. That's what answer choice (B) describes. He confused weakening an argument with proving it false.

Hope that helps!

I think that I get it, thank you for the clarification!