PrepTest 106, Section 3, Question 5
Jane: Television programs and movies that depict violence(87 more words not shown)
Maurice's attempted refutation of Jane's(12 more words not shown)
- AIt presupposes that(9 more words not shown)
- BIt confuses a(13 more words not shown)
- CIt rules out(21 more words not shown)
- DIt cites purported(7 more words not shown)
- EIt relies on(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Violence existed before television. Could television still make some violence more likely today?
Jane thinks depictions of teenage violence influence young viewers to act violently and should therefore be prohibited, at least in material promoted to them. I'd want evidence for that causal claim. Popularity and influence don't automatically establish this particular harmful effect.
Maurice raises a concern about censorship, then gives a separate reason for rejecting Jane's causal claim: young people were violent long before movies and television existed. But that only establishes that other causes of violence exist. A newer influence could still contribute to present violence or make an existing problem worse.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to criticize Maurice's attempted refutation. Even if we aren't persuaded by Jane, Maurice hasn't ruled out her proposed cause. I'd look for the mistake of treating a phenomenon's earlier existence as proof that something newer can't contribute to it now.
Working the answers
- A
Maurice calls the policy censorship, but he doesn't say it is unpopular or that unpopular policies never work. The popularity mentioned in the passage belongs to the programs and movies. We shouldn't turn that into a claim about the popularity or effectiveness of Jane's proposed prohibition.
- B
This would require a confusion between an individual's moral permission to do something and a description of a social fact. Maurice's objection concerns censorship and the history of violence. He doesn't derive a fact about violence from a private moral judgment. The historical claim has a different problem: it doesn't exclude a present cause.
- CCorrect
The current phenomenon is violence among young people. The proposed cause is depictions of teenage violence in movies and television. Maurice dismisses that cause because the phenomenon occurred before those media existed.
That doesn't work. Other causes could explain earlier violence while media depictions contribute to violence today. They could also intensify a problem that already existed. Jane hasn't claimed these depictions are the only possible cause of violence throughout history, so Maurice hasn't refuted her causal claim.
- D
The passage gives no reason to think the historical claim cannot possibly be checked. More importantly, we can accept that violence predates television and still see Maurice's mistake. The problem is what he infers from that history, not an established inability to verify it.
- E
Maurice doesn't switch between different meanings of “violence.” Compare that with an argument that used “violent” to describe severe stomach pain and then treated it as meaning aggressive conduct. That would change the meaning. Here the discussion consistently concerns violent behavior among young people, so no such switch explains the mistake.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.