#15 - When a group of children who have been watching

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The flaw in this stimulus is that we are provided no information regarding the groups of children used in the study. The author has given us no information regarding the controls placed upon the study to assure that the two groups of children came in with an even level of aggressiveness. It is quite possible from the information given that the group of children who watched the violent programming were already predisposed to violence for some other reason. Perhaps one group was completely made up of boys, who tend to play more aggressively, and the other group was made up completely of girls. Just because it is likely that some type of control was placed upon the groups to assure the lack of such differences does not mean that we automatically assume so.

Answer Choice (A): This is not an assumption being made by the stimulus author. If anything, it is a broader version of the main point the author is attempting to make.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is completely irrelevant to the stimulus argument. The stimulus involves the relationship between television violence and violence in children. The responsibility of parents has no affect whatsoever on the stimulus argument regarding that relationship.

Answer Choice (C): This statement is the opposite of the main point the stimulus author is attempting to convey. The author is attempting to establish that link between observation of violence and actual violence. This answer choice dismisses that link.

Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Using the assumption negation technique, if there are other differences between the two groups then the link between television violence and real violence cannot be automatically made on the basis of the study. It is necessary to reach the stimulus conclusion that we are able to assume that the study was run with children of similar dispositions towards violent behavior.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is irrelevant to the point the author is trying to make. The author is attempting to link television violence to actual violence. This answer choice is linking actual violence to actual violence.

[andriana.caban]

Hey!

For answer choice (D), can you do the negation technique using their wording? I wanted to choose D, but didn't because I read the negation like this:

There are no differences between the two groups of children that might not account for the difference in violent behavior.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Andriana!

This one involves cause and effect reasoning. More specifically, the causal reasoning is that watching violence on TV causes violent behavior in children.

Answer (D) states, "There are no other differences between the two groups of children that might account for the difference in violent behavior."

To your question of what it would look like to apply the Assumption Negation technique to this, it should be:

There are some/at least one other differences between the two groups of children that might account for the difference in violent behavior.

If this were true, the author's argument would fall apart that the given evidence proves the conclusion that "children at play can be prevented from committing violent acts by not being allowed to watch violence on television."

[BostonLawGuy]

After viewing past posts on this question, I am a bit confused on answer choice "C".

The author relies on causal reasoning: Violent TV Violent behavior

As a defender to the argument, I would think that the author assumes no other cause (such as observation of the children) caused the violent behavior. So, C seems to be ruling out that alternative cause. I understand why "D" is the correct answer choice but "C" also seems to be a necessary assumption. And since on assumption questions, more narrow answers are often correct I opted for "C" instead.

NEGATE: Violent actions and passive observation ARE related. (in which case, violent TV watching did not necessarily cause the violent behavior, being observed possibly caused it)

[Adam Tyson]

I see where you're coming from there, BostonLawGuy, but I think you may be overlooking one thing: watching violence on TV IS an example of "passive observation of violent actions." If we negate that answer, then, as you did correctly in your response, that would strengthen the claim about watching violence on TV being the cause of the violent behavior among those kids, because they passively watched violent actions and then acted violently. It's not describing an alternate cause - it's describing the same cause that the author assumed!

[BostonLawGuy]

I understand your explanation. I have to say, that we are not giving referential phrasing regarding "passive observation" of violence. Yes, it does make sense that it refers to the children's passively watching violence on TV. But the children in the school yard are being passively watched by a person, group or video camera, etc. Someone has to be watching them in order to make the necessary observations for the study.

Being watched can change one's behavior and eliminating that possibility would be a necessary assumption for the argument, it would seem.

I guess I just don't like the ambiguity of the question. But I understand your explanation. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I think there's an important difference here between passively watching and being passively watched. The kids who watched violence became violent. This isn't about having someone else passively watch them, but about them doing the watching. Besides, the watchers couldn't have caused the violence by just watching that same violence, because they weren't watching violent actions until the kids became violent. Up until that point, they were passively watching non-violence.

I'm making my own head spin now!

[Gbopa2022]

Hi Powerscore,

Just had a question about answer choice (A), since A and E were the ones I narrowed it down to. I got this question right but just wanted to be certain about why A was wrong just for my own knowledge because to me it seemed like a viable answer choice, but E fulfilled my prephrase. As I negate this answer choice, to my understanding it would be "Television does not have a harmful effect on society". This seems like it would weaken the conclusion since if television did not have a harmful effect on society, it would mean that children can't be prevented from committing violent acts by not watching violent tv programs because television is not harmful (due to negation) and therefore it would not matter if they watched violence on tv. Thanks in advance!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

You are making an assumption here, Gbopa2022. The conclusion is that children at play can be prevented from committing violent acts by preventing them from watching violent TV. Answer choice (A) is that TV has a harmful effect on society. We have no idea if children behaving violently in play is harmful to society. It's a large assumption to treat children behaving violently during play with harm to society. Maybe some violent play for children is good for society by working as a steam valve for kids. We don't need to know. But the author did not connect violence in child play with harm to society, so we can't assume that connection either.

Hope that helps!