#1 - Parent 1: Ten years ago, children in communities like

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

Parent 1 argues that since children are dating at earlier ages, they must be romantically interested at earlier ages.

Parent 2 argues that peer pressure explains why children are dating at earlier ages.

The parents disagree about what causes nine to eleven year olds to date, and Parent 2 offers an alternative cause to Parent 1.

Answer choice (A): There is no comparison between phenomena; the parents merely disagree over the explanation for one specific phenomenon.

Answer choice (B) Since neither argument involved generalization from specific cases, this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (C) Parent 2 is more appropriately interpreted to claim exactly the opposite of this choice.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Parent 2 suggests an additional cause, or explanation, for the behavior.

Answer choice (E) Parent 2 does not engage in a character attack.

[Tyler]

I was down to both B and D and chose B after some thought. I thought D was inaccurate in saying "alternative explanation for the children's dating". From reading Parent 2's argument, I thought Parent 2 was merely discussing one case, their own children. Can someone explain why B is wrong exactly? I'm also a little confused on the concept of generalization. Thanks!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Tyler,

Great question!

We actually don't know for sure that Parent 2 is talking about his own children in particular. Both Parent 1 and Parent 2 use the phrase "our children," so it's fair to assume that both are talking about the same group of children introduced in the first sentence ("children in communities like ours").

If we work from the assumption that both Parent 1 and Parent 2 are referring to the same group of kids, then answer choice (B) can be eliminated. Parent 2 isn't talking about an exceptional case, such as one really unusual kid, but is instead talking about the same kids, in general, as Parent 1.

Both parents are making generalizations in this argument. Parent 1 has observed that children are dating earlier, and makes a generalized assumption about why all such children are doing so (romantic interest developing at an earlier age). Parent 2 has made the same observation but makes a different generalization about why this might be the case (peer pressure).

An exceptional case argument would look more like this: "It's not true that children are developing romantic interests at an earlier age. 9-year old Susan told me that she still thinks boys have cooties and only asked Mike out on a date because her older sister dared her to. Since Susan hasn't developed a romantic interest in boys yet, other girls her age group likely haven't developed romantic interests either."

This kind of exceptional case reasoning isn't at play in this question. We do, however, see two parents observing the same phenomenon and offering different explanations for why kids are dating at a younger age.

I hope that makes sense. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions if this isn't clear.

Best,

Athena Dalton

[Nicholas Noyes]

Hi,

So the alternate explanation is because parent 1 says they are becoming more "romantically interested" and parent 2 says that they are dating due to "peer pressure"? I chose B because I was thrown off by the wording "I disagree" used by parent 1.

-Nicholas

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Nicholas! You are totally correct about why Answer Choice (D) is correct. Parent 1 in our stimulus is saying that kids are dating due to earlier romantic interest, while Parent 2 is attributing the dating to an alternative explanation: peer pressure.

As for Answer Choice (B) - like Athena explained wonderfully above, neither of the parents in our stimulus are talking about a specific, exceptional case. If Parent 2 in our stimulus had instead said something like, "Well, take a look at our neighbor's kid, little Billy Jones. Why he's not romantically interested in the other sex at all! The only reason he's dating that Susie Jenkins is because his older brother bullied him into it!" then Answer Choice (B) would have been a good answer, because it's attempting to refute a generalization (about a whole community of kids) by pointing out a specific (about little Billy). So while the words "I disagree" from Parent 2 possibly made the word "refute" in Answer Choice (B) stand out to you, be sure to carefully read the entire answer choice and understand what it's saying.

It's extremely helpful to pre-phrase these Method of Reasoning questions. Before reading the answer choices, think about exactly how Parent 2 is responding to Parent 1. That way it's more difficult to get thrown off by an answer choice like (B) just because it uses a word like "refute". Hope that helps!