PrepTest 118, Section 4, Question 24
Bardis: Extensive research shows that television advertisements affect(62 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Bardis's argument(5 more words not shown)
- Arelies on an(19 more words not shown)
- Bfails to distinguish(16 more words not shown)
- Cundermines its own(9 more words not shown)
- Dconcludes that a(18 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An advertisement is trying to change what I do. A television drama might simply be telling a story. I can see why those aren't automatically comparable.
Bardis points to that difference in purpose. Advertisements are designed to influence purchases, while violent programs aren't designed to make viewers commit violence. So evidence that advertisements affect behavior doesn't settle whether violent entertainment has a similar effect.
But it doesn't settle the opposite either.
A program could have an unintended effect. For example, could watching repeated violence make someone less sensitive to it? That's a possibility to investigate, not a fact we've established. The point is that showing a weakness in one argument leaves the larger question open. Bardis hasn't proved that violent television has no effect just by questioning the advertising comparison.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to describe that overreaction. I'd put it this way: “You haven't shown that the claim is true” becomes “The claim is false.” We need evidence against the claim itself before making that move.
Working the answers
- A
Bardis doesn't argue that advertisements cause violent behavior. The disputed claim concerns violent television imagery causing violence, and Bardis rejects that claim. A changes both what is alleged to cause violence and which position the author takes.
- B
The argument distinguishes the images people watch from the behavior those images might produce. Watching televised violence and committing violence are not treated as the same thing. The problem is what Bardis concludes from a weakness in the comparison, not a failure to separate a stimulus from a possible response.
- C
Bardis accepts that television advertisements affect buying habits. The question is whether we can carry that result over to violent programming. Challenging that comparison doesn't question advertising's effectiveness, so C misstates the position.
- DCorrect
The claim is that violent television imagery sometimes causes violence. Bardis finds a purported problem in one argument supporting it: ads are intended to influence behavior, while violent programming is not. Then Bardis concludes that the claim must be false.
Even if the comparison is inadequate, some other evidence could support the claim. Our possible desensitization explanation illustrates a different route someone might investigate. Defeating the advertising analogy hasn't defeated every possible reason to think violent programming affects behavior.
- E
Both sides address whether violent television imagery causes violence. Bardis understands that issue and offers an objection to the argument supporting it. We don't need to imagine that the other people intended to discuss something else. The error occurs when Bardis treats the objection as proof of the opposite result.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.