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.
6.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ██████ █████████
a
The most violent ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███████
Irrelevant. Jane's argument is specifically about depictions of violence among teenagers. Telling us the most violent characters are adults played by adult actors is about a different category of content with no clear relationship to Jane's argument.
b
The movies that ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████
This strengthens by lining up Jane's remedy with where the influence actually is. Jane wants to regulate media promoted to young audiences, and (B) tells us those are exactly the movies shown to influence young people's behavior the most. That connects her narrow target to the effect she cares about: cut violent content in the youth-promoted movies, and you're cutting it in the very movies that most shape how young people behave.
c
The people who ████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████
Irrelevant. This is about which producers make the most money, not about whether violent depictions cause youth violence or whether banning them would help. Jane's conclusion is a recommendation about what should be prohibited, and industry profits have no bearing on it. Even if the ban would cut into someone's profits, that wouldn't make her argument any stronger or weaker.
d
Many adolescents who ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████
If this does anything, it would weaken. If many violent adolescents were already violent before being exposed to movie violence, that undercuts Jane's core claim that the depictions cause the violence. The behavior showing up first points to some other source.
e
Among the producers ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████████
Irrelevant. That many producers already restrict content in youth-directed films on their own doesn't support Jane's claim that violent depictions cause violence, and it doesn't show that a ban would reduce youth violence. At most it says some of this restraint happens voluntarily, which does nothing to strengthen her case for prohibiting the content.