Self-paced
Support The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge. ████ ████ █ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████ █ ████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ███████████
Argument Summary
The argument points out a correlation: the more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge. We're given statistics comparing the United States and South Korea: in the US, a more than a third of children watch more than five hours of TV daily, and less than 15% of children understand "advanced measurement and geometric concepts." In South Korea, only 7% of children watch more than five hours of TV daily, and 40% of children are competent with those mathematical concepts. The argument concludes by saying that in order to do well in mathematics, children in the US must watch less television.
12.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
Children in the ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ █████████
Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that children in the US are less interested in advanced measurement and geometric concepts than are South Korean children. Imagine negating (A): "Children in the United States are more interested in advanced measurement and geometric concepts than are South Korean children."
It's not clear what effect this would have in the argument. Maybe it would strengthen the argument, because, if American children are more interested in these concepts than South Korean children and are only being distracted by too much TV, then maybe reducing the amount of TV would in fact help these children perform better. In any case, since negating (A) doesn't destroy the argument, (A) isn't a necessary assumption.
b
South Korean children ███ ████ ███████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████
Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that South Korean children are more disciplined in their schoolwork than children in the US. In fact, the argument almost assumes the opposite: that there is no significant difference in how US children and South Korean children approach their schoolwork. If there were a difference, that would suggest an alternative cause for the difference in mathematical performance.
c
Children who want ██ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ███████████
Incorrect. The argument never talks about children who “want” to perform well in these areas, only about children who do perform well in those areas. We don’t know anything about how children wanting to perform well affects the argument.
d
A child’s ability ██ ████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █ ████
Incorrect. (D) is much too specific. It could help the argument if it were true, but it doesn't have to be true for the argument to work. Even if a child's ability in advanced measurement and geometry does not increase if he or she watches less than one hour of television a day, maybe it increases if the child reduces daily TV hours from five hours to between one to two hours, or something like that. We don't know how much television the majority of South Korean children are watching.
e
The instruction in ████████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████████ █████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████ █████████
Correct. (E) relates to the causation/correlation assumption above. If we negate (E) to say that the instruction in these concepts available to children in the United States is substantially worse than that available to South Korean children, this would suggest an alternative cause for why US children have a worse grasp on these concepts than South Korean children do. The cause isn’t necessarily watching too much TV, it’s the quality of their education. So (E) accurately identifies a necessary assumption for the argument.