Q24 - Bardis: Extensive research shows

[f100875]

I could find out why D is right, could you please explain ?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument has three major elements.

1. Some people claim that violent television causes violent behavior.
2. Violent television may not be designed to cause violent behavior.
3. Therefore, violent television does not cause violence.

The argument concludes that something is not true, after merely pointing out one possible reason why the claim may not be true. The evidence is very weak and definitely does not establish the truth of the conclusion.

(A) does not describe a flaw committed in the argument because the argument never claims that advertisements can cause violent behavior.
(B) is somewhat tempting if one thinks that the difference between advertisements and violent television is not sufficiently dealt with. The argument does distinguish the two though. If the argument had claimed that because violent television and advertisements were similar, then this would have been a better answer. However, the argument does not claim that advertisements and violent television are similar, but rather that they are different.
(C) does not describe a flaw committed in the argument because the argument's evidence, while insufficient to prove the conclusion, does not undermine it's own position.
(D) describes exactly what is wrong with the argument. The evidence offers one reason why the claim of some people is not true, and then concludes on that basis that the claim is in fact not true.
(E) does not describe a flaw committed in the argument because the issue it disputes is whether violent television can cause violent behavior, and the evidence is about whether violent television is intended to cause violent behavior - not a separate issue.

Does that help clear things up? Whenever the answer choices are phrased so abstractly it does make things a bit tougher!

[skapur777]

What exactly does B say though

fails to distinguish a type of 'behavior' from a type of stimulus (?) that may or may not affect behavior (??)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

What exactly does B say though

fails to distinguish a type of 'behavior' from a type of stimulus (?) that may or may not affect behavior (??)

Great question.

fails to distinguish a type of 'behavior' [violent behavior] from a type of stimulus [watching violent television] that may or may not affect behavior

But the argument to be successful doesn't need to distinguish the two factors. Mostly this is a wild goose chase, that they're just hoping you'll spend forever trying to think about what it means. Keep in mind that the argument does NOT confuse violent behavior on television with watching violent television. So no, the author did not "fail to distinguish" between violent behavior and watching television.

Let me know if you still have questions on this one though.

[skapur777]

I know understand what the sentence 'translates to', such as what behavior and stimulus means but I did not understand the explanation embarrassingly-enough

"The argument does not confuse violent behavior on television with watching violent television"

I am confused by this statement, I thought the argument meant "violent behavior" by the people who watch violent television not violent behavior on television.

Still unsure what this statement means. I thought B as wrong because they do distinguish the behavior from the stimulus. It is very clear that the author thinks that the behavior, violent behavior, is not caused by violent television imagery. He separates the two and thus they are distinguished.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It is very clear that the author thinks that the behavior, violent behavior, is not caused by violent television imagery. He separates the two and thus they are distinguished.

What's the distinction that you're seeing here? Can you point to one difference between the two that the author points to that would represent a difference between the two?

The only distinction that I see in this argument is that between violent television and television advertisements. The latter intended to alter buying habits whereas the former is not designed to cause violent behavior.

[jimmy902o]

Can someone please go into more detail as to why E is incorrect? Here was my thought process on the question...

I thought that when the answer choice said the argument it disputed is intended to address a separate issue, this could mean that the evidence offered (the effectiveness of TV advertisements could be a result of those images being specifically designed to alter habits) has nothing to do which the actual aim of the advertisement. For example, the effectiveness of the advertisement could be due to favorable background colores. My example, then, would be the "separate issue" and the evidence given (about being designed to alter buying habits) would be irrelevant

[shirando21]

I picked E too. can't figure out between D and E...

Help needed.

[austindyoung]

(E) does not describe a flaw committed in the argument because the issue it disputes is whether violent television can cause violent behavior, and the evidence is about whether violent television is intended to cause violent behavior - not a separate issue.

^ This.

[acechaowang]

The claim it disputes is the same as the conclusion. so there is no separate issue here. That is why E is wrong.

[crazinessinabox]

Does anyone have more detailed thoughts on what precisely the "fault in an argument in favor of that claim" (per (D)) is?

The explanation above indicates that the fault is that "television violence is not designed to cause violent behavior." This may virtually be the same thing, but I thought the fault was specifically that the comparison between TV advertisement effectiveness and TV violent imagery effectiveness was not strong, or even invalid (because of the different design purpose). Hence, the evidence for the conclusion was a comparison that Bardis undermined.

Possibly a minor point, but wanted to see if this struck anyone else. Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The explanation above indicates that the fault is that "television violence is not designed to cause violent behavior." This may virtually be the same thing, but I thought the fault was specifically that the comparison between TV advertisement effectiveness and TV violent imagery effectiveness was not strong, or even invalid (because of the different design purpose). Hence, the evidence for the conclusion was a comparison that Bardis undermined.

You've got it! You've just flushed out the distinction a bit more. Bardis points out that there may be a difference between the way violent television and advertisements are designed, thus undermining those people who think that violent television sometimes causes violent behavior. But just because there may be a distinction in the way the two are designed does not mean that the two do not have the same effect.

Nice work crazinessinabox!

[stm_512]

The flaw that quickly jumped out at me was that just because television violence is not designed to cause violent behavior, it does not follow that it does not in fact cause violence.

I chose B) because it seems to relate to the flaw that I saw, although I didn't really know what that sentence actually meant.

I notice a re-occurring flaw that the LSAT writers like us to identify: concluding an argument is flawed on the basis that one possible way to attack the argument is flawed. This is exactly the flaw the stimulus commits.

[513852276]

To add, D is wrong because the argument it disputes draw conclusion from "tv alter buying habit" (as stated in line 3, "some people conclude from this"). The argument disputed does not offer another premise. So, there are no clue that the argument disputed intended to address another issue (although the argument would make more sense if it add or address another reason, or mention other issues). However, even Badis argument is invalid, it does not mean his conclusion/claim must be false. It just like saying "All men are smart. Since Lily is a woman, she must be smart". Although it is an invalid conditional argument, the claim "Lily is smart" is unnecessarily false.

[513852276]

For B, what if it says "fail to distinguish a type of behavior from a type of stimulus that may or may not required by this behavior", is this correct?

[lin_alakkad]

I still don't get why E is wrong and D is right. I don't think TV ads and violent imagery are the same issue. Each are designed to have a different puprose

[ohthatpatrick]

Of course they're separate issues. You and Bardis agree about this!

If we agree, then how could this be our objection to what Bardis said?

What is the argument that Bardis is disputing? What is its Premise, what is its Conclusion?

SOME PEOPLE'S ARGUMENT
conc - violent TV imagery can cause violent behavior
evid - research shows that TV ads affect buying habits

OUR AUTHOR'S ARGUMENT
conc - violent TV imagery does not cause violence
evid - TV ads and violent TV are two separate issues

(E) is saying that our author is addressing a separate issue from his opponent.

But they're conclusions are on exactly the same topic! So they're arguing the same issue.