Self-paced
Jane: Television programs and movies that depict violence among teenagers are extremely popular. █████ ███ ███████████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ██████████ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████
████████ ███ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████ ████████ ██ █████████ ████████ █████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████
Stimulus Summary
Jane argues violent depictions of teenagers are popular, and these media are influential, so (she claims) the depictions cause young people to behave violently. From there she recommends banning such depictions, though she narrows the ban to media promoted to young audiences.
Maurice pushes back in two ways. First, he objects that what Jane is proposing amounts to censorship. Second, he goes after her causal claim directly: he says it's mistaken that movie and TV depictions cause violence, because violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries, so the violence can't be pinned on media that didn't yet exist.
5.
Maurice's attempted refutation of Jane's ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
It presupposes that ██ █████████ ██████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████
Maurice never argues that the ban would fail to work because it's unpopular.
b
It confuses a ██████████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██████████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████
Maurice doesn't do this. His refutation is about undermining a causal claim: violence existed before media, so (he thinks) media isn't the cause. There's no point where he treats a private moral judgment as if it were an objective social fact.
c
It rules out █████████ ██ █ █████ ██ █ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ████ ██████
Maurice rules media out as a cause of youth violence solely because youth violence occurred before movies and television existed. But an effect having earlier causes doesn't mean a newer thing can't also be a cause. Guns can cause violence even though people killed each other before guns were invented.
d
It cites purported ██████████ █████ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████████
Maurice does cite a historical claim, that youth violence goes back centuries, but the trouble isn't that it can't be verified. The flaw is the inference he draws from it, not the reliability of the fact itself. We have no reason to think we can't verify the idea that youth violence goes back a long time.
e
It relies on ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █ ██████
Maurice uses the term the same way Jane does: violent behavior by young people. Nothing in his argument turns on shifting between two meanings of the word "violence."