#18 - The advent of television helps to explain

[ericj_williams]

How is A not correct for showing that when I reduce the cause, I reduce the effect (if we are talking about violence being caused by violence on TV)? It also makes direct reference to homicides.

The argument is the increase in number of TV causes the increase in homicides. But B talks about the portrayal of violence. The portrayal of violence is not the same as the advent of TV.

Nowhere in the stimulus does it talk about violence on TV. Even if violence on TV does lead to homicides, how do we know what the people were watching?

You warn of filling in gaps, but then defend filling gaps by assuming what people in urban areas are watching.

Where in the stim does it talk about what's on TV? It only talks increasing the number (advent) of TV's.

[Dave Killoran]

How is A not correct for showing that when I reduce the cause, I reduce the effect (if we are talking about violence being caused by violence on TV)? It also makes direct reference to homicides.

The argument is the increase in number of TV causes the increase in homicides. But B talks about the portrayal of violence. The portrayal of violence is not the same as the advent of TV.

Nowhere in the stimulus does it talk about violence on TV. Even if violence on TV does lead to homicides, how do we know what the people were watching?

You warn of filling in gaps, but then defend filling gaps by assuming what people in urban areas are watching.

Where in the stim does it talk about what's on TV? It only talks increasing the number (advent) of TV's.

Hi Eric,

One of the things that makes the LSAT so tough is the way they use words and force you to read so closely. If we had all day for the exam that wouldn't be a big issue, but when you put that clock on 35 minutes, it makes the whole exercise a real challenge. When you are reviewing answers after the fact, that clock is off thankfully, and you also have an additional piece of info that you didn't have before:you know exactly which answer the test makers say is right, and which four are wrong. Given that your job is to understand how they think, that's incredibly valuable. So, the first thing I always say to students when they are arguing why an answer choice is right is: why would LSAC say this is wrong? Because, as we all know, what they say is all that matters

So, what would LSAC say makes answer choice (A) wrong? Take a second to view it from their angle, because you've already identified the issue with this answer above.

Adam Tyson talked about this answer choice a bit in a prior post, but to me the issue is one where they change terms: the stimulus is about television sets becoming popular, then violence rising later, and links them in a causative manner. Answer (A) addresses programs, and so the idea of using those in a "reducing the cause and reducing the effect about" manner loses it's luster because any critic would immediately point that difference out, which makes it a weaker supporter. Do I hate this answer? No. It's just that to me (B) is far more powerful.

On that note, when we look at (B), why is that better even though it too somewhat addresses content and not sets? It's because of the clarity and forcefulness of what is being said: it's confirming the link directly, and removing a possible counter-argument. Yes, it's not about sets, but this is a useful piece of info, and this is a Strengthen question. would this Strengthen the argument? I'd say so without any hesitation.

I'm usually of the mindset that one answer is clearly right and the other four are clearly wrong, but this is more a case where (A) isn't terrible and (B) is just better.

Last, I'll point out that what we are attempting to do here is explain LSAC's reasoning. So, please don't kill the messenger

Thanks!

[a.hopp]

I think I was in a complete brain fog overthinking this question.

Could you explain why C is not the best answer choice?

I think I gave too much stock to urban homicide rates increasing 4 years earlier that rural homicide rates contrasted with the popularity of television sets in urban households coming on 5 years before rural households - I focused on the irrelevant one year difference between these two different facts. I don't even know how to explain what I was thinking so I think it would be helpful if someone could talk me through answer choices A, B, and C since those were the ones I struggled between.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

a.hopp, answer choice (A) and answer choice (C) have a very similar issue---they aren't talking about the stimulus we have.

Our stimulus doesn't mention programming at all. It gives us a causal relationship. The introduction of televisions CAUSES an increase in the homicide rate. So since you are thinking of homicide, you are thinking of violence. You might want to think that violent actions must be connected to the violence on TV, but our stimulus NEVER says that. Answer choice (A) is trying to link the number of violent TV shows to the homicide rate, but we don't know if there's a magic number that would cause there to be an increase in homicides. It seems to be the number of TVs that matters (because then they can reach more people, but not the number of shows.

For answer choice (C), we have a few issues. First, we don't know what "the early years" of television means. Was that in the 50s? Earlier? We can't link it up to the argument we have based on time. Additionally, even if there WERE no violent TV programs in the relevant time period, we wouldn't be strengthening the idea that TV popularity causes homicide. It wouldn't really connect at all. Maybe the fact that the TV was a noncommunal activity was the key to rise in homicides. We don't know that it had to be violent TV, or couldn't be violent TV. We don't know (or address) what specific part about TV popularity caused the increase in the homicide rate.

Answer choice (B) is different. Answer choice (B) gives us that connection. It says the portrayal violence on TV causes violence in society. That indicates that the cause (the TV) comes before the effect (homicide rate). That supports the causal relationship in the stimulus. We are showing that the cause and the effect are not reversed. That's a classic strengthen answer.

Hope that helps!