Bardis: Extensive research shows that television advertisements affect the buying habits of consumers. ββββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββ ββββ βββββββ ββββββββββ βββββββ βββββββββ ββββββ βββββββ βββββββββ βββ βββ βββββββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββββββ βββββ ββ β ββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββββ ββββββ βββββ ββββββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββ βββββββ βββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββββ βββββββββ βββββ ββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββ ββββββββββ βββββββ ββββ βββ βββββ βββββββββ
Bardis concludes that television does not cause people to be violent. He supports this by drawing a distinction between shows with violent imagery and commercials, saying that commercials are intended to persuade people to buy a product whereas violent shows are not intended to persuade anyone to be violent.
Bardis mistakenly thinks his showing that an opposing argument is flawed proves that the opposing argument's conclusion must be false. Bardis shows that we cannot conclude from the fact that TV ads affect consumers that TV violence causes violence. However, this does not prove that TV ads don't cause violence. It's possible that they do cause violence, even if one particular argument in favor of that point isn't successful.
The reasoning in Bardis's argument ββ ββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββββ
relies on an ββββββββββββ βββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββ ββββ ββββββββββββββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββββ ββββββββββββββ βββ βββββ βββββββ ββββββββ
fails to distinguish β ββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ β ββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββ βββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββ
undermines its own ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββββββββ βββββ ββ ββββββββββ βββββββββββ
concludes that a βββββ ββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ βββββ ββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββ ββ ββββ βββββ
fails to consider βββ βββββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββ β ββββββββ βββββ