#4 - To the editor: For generations, magnificent racehorses

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

C E

Gambling Children cannot develop good character

The answer to this question can certainly be prephrased, because a causal argument can be weakened
in five ways. We should look for the answer choice which provides one of the following scenarios:

1. The hypothesized cause is present but the claimed effect is absent.

2. The supposed cause is absent, but the effect is present.

3. An alternative cause leads to the effect.

4. The supposed “cause” is actually the effect, and vice-versa.

5. A valid attack on a weakness in supporting data.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice does not adequately weaken the argument. Perhaps the
children raised without gambling in the past were able to develop good character early, and will
therefore not be affected by the introduction of a new racetrack. However, the author still has a
point in arguing that the racetrack will be detrimental to future generations of children who will not
develop good character at all.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If parents are able to raise children of good
character despite the gambling around them, then perhaps gambling is not always a problem. By
offering a counterexample in which the cause is present, but the effect is not, this answer choice
weakens the causal relationship in the argument.

Answer choice (C): How the percentage of adults who gamble in areas with horse racing changes
from year to year is irrelevant to examining the effect of gambling on children. Perhaps if that
percentage increases from year to year, the author has a point in arguing that children should not be
exposed to gambling. This answer choice certainly does not weaken the argument; if anything, it
might support it.

Answer choice (D): Whether children raised by gambling parents might copy that behavior when
they grow up is irrelevant to the author’s conclusion. The author argues that gambling adversely
affects the character of children, not their future propensity to gamble. In other words, even if
children don’t end up gambling when they become adults, their character may still have been
affected by the environment in which they were raised. This is a classic Shell Game answer, used to
attack a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from, the one presented in the stimulus.

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I initially chose (D) and thought none of the answer choice was a good fit.. But then I picked (B) the second time. Is it because L.E. confuses gambling in general with gambling on horses?

Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

Not quite, lilmissunshine! L.E. here thinks that if the racetrack is built, then children will be raised in an environment in which they will not develop good character. In other words, she thinks being near gambling causes poor character development.

To weaken this argument, we want to show that gambling in the environment might not cause poor character development. Perhaps something else causes it? Or, as answer B suggests, perhaps the alleged cause can be present at a time and place where the effect remains absent? That is, in other places where there is gambling (the cause is present), kids nonetheless develop good character (the effect is absent). That is one of five common ways to attack, and thus weaken, a causal claim.

Answer choice D doesn't do that for us, not does it show any alternate cause for poor character development, nor does it attack any data on which L.E. may have relied. It doesn't show that the cause and effect relationship is reversed, and it doesn't show poor character development in places where there is no gambling. It does none of the things that a good causal weaken answer needs to do!

Remember, to weaken a causal argument, you want to suggest:

1. an alternate cause
2. the cause without the effect
3. the effect without the cause
4. the causal relationship might be reversed
5. there could be a problem with any data/studies/surveys/experiments on which the author relied

Keep at it!

[lilmissunshine]

Thanks a lot Adam! That was very helpful!!

[saygracealways]

Hi PowerScore,

Could you please help explain how you identified the causal argument in the stimulus / decided to solve the question using causal reasoning? Is "not develop" a causal indicator word?

I thought that the language in the stimulus was more indicative of conditional reasoning:
Premise: Gambling Children won't develop good character
Conclusion (contrapositive): Children develop good character --> NO gambling

The gap in the reasoning is that the author assumes racetracks will undoubtedly involve gambling and hence children won't develop good character. (B) weakens the assumption by saying that even in areas with gambling, children can still develop good behavior.

Could you please let me know if I'm on the right track here? Thank you!

[Tuothekhazar]

Character that make children winners in the contest of life -> Good Character

1. Suppose that Ca, neutral C, Ca+1, Good C, and Ca-1, bad C, will be only 3 situations discussed.

Gambling is wrong, and children lives under the ,atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing, will not have Ca+1.

2. G -> At / where the goal is to get something for nothing -> Children with either Ca or Ca-1.

Contrapositive:

Children with Ca+1 -> At/ without that goal -> No G

So, if you want children with Ca+1 more than G, you should vote against racetrack.

3. Children Ca+1 -> At/without that goal -> No G - > Vote against RT.

To weaken the argument, I believe what we need to find out are as follows.

a. At/ where the goal is to get something for nothing -> Not necessary that Children with either Ca or Ca-1
b. Children Ca+1 -> Not necessary that At/without that goal.
C. G -> Not necessary that At/ where the goal is to get something for nothing.

A. the subject discussed is not the same versus the one in argument. It divides children into 2 groups, one is who develop character early, and another not.

If Children does not continue to have good character, which they developed earlier in life, in different environment later, then they did not have good character be developed early.

* If children with either Ca or Ca-1 in different environment, then those children does not have Ca+1 earlier.

However, it does not necessary mean that they can or can not ever develop good character later in life even under the environment of gambling.

B. It matches our prediction A that under the If gambling lead to the atmosphere where the goal is to get something for nothing, it is not necessary that children raised under that atmosphere would be always with either Ca or Ca-1.

C. It does not touch the core of the argument

D. It the shell game answer.

Gamble as the act would change the environment, and the phenomenon of that change will lead to children with No Ca+1. However, it actually never discussed whether People with Ca+1 or Children with Ca+1 would ever gamble nor whether children raised by the parent who gamble would ever gamble.

E. Not relevant.