#24 - Bardis: Extensive research shows that television

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

Bardis presents evidence concerning the effects of television imagery on viewers. Apparently,
research has proven that television advertisements affect consumers. On the basis of this evidence,
some people have further concluded that violent television imagery sometimes causes violent
behavior. Bardis disputes this notion by pointing out that the television ads might be effective
because they are designed for that purpose whereas the violent imagery is not designed to cause
violence. On the strength of this premise, Bardis concludes that television violence does not cause
actual violence.

When examining the conclusion, note the absolute nature of the language. Does the premise prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that violent television imagery does not cause violence? Considering
this issue will assist you in identifying the fl aw in the reasoning.

Answer choice (A): Bardis never claims that advertisements can cause violent behavior, so this
choice fails the Fact Test.

Answer choice (B): This was the most popular incorrect answer choice, primarily because it
addresses cause and effect and it is clear that the stimulus contains causal reasoning. However, the
fl aw described in this answer choice is not the same as the fl aw in the argument.

This response claims that Bardis confuses a “behavior” with a “stimulus,” which is equivalent to
confusing an effect with a cause. Since Bardis actually clearly defi nes his posited cause and effect,
and there is no confusion between the two, this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): The argument does not undermine itself, and does not question the persuasive
power of advertising. It merely presumes that images have to be intended for a purpose to
accomplish that purpose (this is illogical but it does call into not question the power of advertising).

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The choice describes a classic error in the
use of evidence, specifi cally one where some evidence against a position is taken to prove that the
position is false. Bardis has raised a valid point against the people concluding that television violence
causes violent behavior, namely that television violence is not designed to achieve this end where as
television advertising is designed to achieve a specifi c end. However, that one point does not justify a
concluding that violent television imagery never causes violence.

For the record, the claim in “concluding that a claim is false” refers to the belief that television
violence sometimes causes violent behavior. The “one purported fault” refers to the evidence that
television violence is not designed to produce violence.

Answer choice (E): It is diffi cult to see how “causing violence” could be a separate issue from
“causing violence.” There is no key term that is confused, and the argument, while somewhat weak,
does not get off-target, and the aim is always to defi ne whether television violence causes actual
violence.

[mankariousc]

Hello!

I chose E on this question because I thought that the "separate issue" discussed in the stimulus was that while TV ads are designed to alter buying habits violent TV is not "designed" to cause violent behavior. I am a little confused on all the wrong answer choices as well. Could you explain each?

Thanks!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Mankariousc,

Good question! A key part of getting this (and all flaw questions right) is to generate a strong prephrase. For flaw questions, I like to emphasize the importance of two analytical steps:

1. Describe the argument.
2. Abstract the flaw from the argument.

In other words, take the concrete scenario illustrated in the stimulus, describe what's going on, and then name the flaw if possible. Try to get an overarching idea what the flaw type is (often this step will be sufficient to get the right answer). If more specificity is necessary, zero in on the structure of the flaw.

Let's put this process to work here. What is(are) the flaw family(-ies)? Causal and error in the use of evidence.

We have two phenomena, (1) buying habits of consumers and (2) violent behavior. As a premise, a causal link has been established between (1')TV advertising and (1) buying habits. Some people purport that (2')TV violence may thus be similarly linked to (2)violent behavior.

The subordinate conclusion is: the efficacy of advertising in altering behavior is not analogous to the effect of violence in causing violent behavior (because of the absence of intent to cause violent behavior versus the intent to modify buying habits).

The main conclusion is: violence on TV does not cause violent behavior.

The subordinate conclusion that the issues are incommensurable is based on a purported flaw (intent versus lack of intent).

The main conclusion then proceeds to assume that just because one kind of evidence may be flawed that the whole idea must be thrown out.

Now for a good prephrase let's describe the whole shebang. The author makes an extreme conclusion based on his observation that evidence for the opposite position may be flawed.

1. Toss this one out. Irrelevant aphasic word salad.
2. This is where you have to match the parts of your prephrase to the answer. Do we have a failure to distinguish "type of behavior"? No, we're pretty clear on the distinction between shopping and violence. Although some might beg to differ.
3. Does he contradict himself? No match.
4. This is the correct answer. We have a total match.
5. Let's match again. What's the argument the author disputes? He disputes the argument that TV violence is causally linked to violent behavior. Is the argument that TV violence is causally linked to violent behavior intended to address a separate issue, i.e.
   advertising and consumption? No, the TV violence begets violence argument is what it says it is: some people think TV violence causes violence, so this is not a match.

I hope this helps!

[Tuothekhazar]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

Bardis presents evidence concerning the effects of television imagery on viewers. Apparently,
research has proven that television advertisements affect consumers. On the basis of this evidence,
some people have further concluded that violent television imagery sometimes causes violent
behavior. Bardis disputes this notion by pointing out that the television ads might be effective
because they are designed for that purpose whereas the violent imagery is not designed to cause
violence. On the strength of this premise, Bardis concludes that television violence does not cause
actual violence.

When examining the conclusion, note the absolute nature of the language. Does the premise prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that violent television imagery does not cause violence? Considering
this issue will assist you in identifying the fl aw in the reasoning.

Answer choice (A): Bardis never claims that advertisements can cause violent behavior, so this
choice fails the Fact Test.

Answer choice (B): This was the most popular incorrect answer choice, primarily because it
addresses cause and effect and it is clear that the stimulus contains causal reasoning. However, the
fl aw described in this answer choice is not the same as the fl aw in the argument.

This response claims that Bardis confuses a “behavior” with a “stimulus,” which is equivalent to
confusing an effect with a cause. Since Bardis actually clearly defi nes his posited cause and effect,
and there is no confusion between the two, this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): The argument does not undermine itself, and does not question the persuasive
power of advertising. It merely presumes that images have to be intended for a purpose to
accomplish that purpose (this is illogical but it does call into not question the power of advertising).

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. The choice describes a classic error in the
use of evidence, specifi cally one where some evidence against a position is taken to prove that the
position is false. Bardis has raised a valid point against the people concluding that television violence
causes violent behavior, namely that television violence is not designed to achieve this end where as
television advertising is designed to achieve a specifi c end. However, that one point does not justify a
concluding that violent television imagery never causes violence.

For the record, the claim in “concluding that a claim is false” refers to the belief that television
violence sometimes causes violent behavior. The “one purported fault” refers to the evidence that
television violence is not designed to produce violence.

Answer choice (E): It is diffi cult to see how “causing violence” could be a separate issue from
“causing violence.” There is no key term that is confused, and the argument, while somewhat weak,
does not get off-target, and the aim is always to defi ne whether television violence causes actual
violence.

Please allow me to ask few questions


1. May we simplify the argument as follows ?

Some people say V cause Y based on X cause Z from the research, but Y can be caused by X when some of X have the characteristic of d, and all V does not have the characteristic of d, so V does not cause Y

2. May I say the argument committed the flaws as follows that

1 Xd can cause Y does not necessary mean that any X without d can not cause Y

2. False to equate the degree of sufficiencies that X, Xd, and V can all serve as the cause to the effect Y

3. Take for granted that V must also require the characteristic of d to sufficiently serves as the cause of Y.

4. Ignore that V might have other characteristics to cause Y.

5. Conclude that a claim, causation as V cause Y, is false on the basis of falsely presuming the characteristic of d being necessary to X causing Y is also necessary to V causing Y in an argument in favor of that claim.

3. What is the phrase of " one purported fault " in both LSAT language and English language really means ?

From Dictionary

a. that has been stated to have happened or to be true, when this might not be the case

b. meaning conveyed, professed, or implied import

c. have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming

So, may we say that " one purported fault actually could be translated as one intended fault ? But if this is the case, would not answer D actually states that Bardis, offered the claim based on the argument from the question 24, faults the argument intentionally in favor his claim.

How do we know if he " purported " or " intentionally " to fault the argument like that ? Perhaps he is just not as good as working on the LSAT 45 or perhaps he is sleepy right ? Where does that motive come from ?

[Albertlyu]

thank you all for sharing, I think I have got this one, just to be sure: is B saying "fail to tell that violent behavior is different from TV ads that may or may not affect the violent behavior"? thanks.

Albert

[Adam Tyson]

Albert: In short, yes! Good job there! Answer B is about confusing a cause and an effect, which is not what this argument did wrong.

Tuothekhazar: That was a lot to digest! I would caution you against too much abstraction. While some amount of abstraction in analyzing and argument can be a good thing by helping us to simplify complex relationships, when we start to put everything into completely abstract terms we can quickly lose the entire meaning of what we are looking at and looking for in the answers. Avoid all those Xs and Ys and such! That said, I THINK everything you said was correct, as far as the structure of the argument and the possible flaws.

A "purported" claim is one that the author wants us to believe, but which might not be true. It's not so much about "intended," in the sense of motivation, as found in the dictionary definition, but about it being advanced as true when it might not be. The author intends us to believe that he is correct about that flaw.

So here, the author has shown one possible flaw in an argument - that is the purported fault - and then acted as if that purported flaw was enough, by itself, to disprove the argument. We would call that a "some evidence" flaw - the author has some evidence that a claim is false, and then acts as if the claim must therefore be false.

[Albertlyu]

got it, thanks, Adam!