A
Children who are excited by violent action programs on television tend to become bored with schoolwork and to express their boredom in an unacceptable fashion.
B
When parents watch violent programs on television with their children, those children become more likely to regard antisocial behavior as legitimate.
C
Parents who rated their children’s television viewing low on violence had become desensitized to the violence on television by watching too much of it.
D
Children learn from violent programs on television to disrespect society’s prohibitions of violence and, as a result, are more likely than other children to disrespect the school disciplinary codes.
E
Parents who do not allow their children to watch programs with a high level of violence are more likely than other parents to be careful about other aspects of their children’s behavior.
Conclusion: But that’s absurd, i.e., the argument’s logic is absurd.
Premise: An “unnatural action” is either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly. Violating the laws of nature is impossible. A statistical anomaly is simply something uncommon, and that is not a good reason to avoid doing it.
A
undermining a concept by showing that its acceptance would violate a law of nature
B
stating the definition of a key term of the argument
C
using statistical findings to dispute a claim
D
undermining a claim by showing that the claim is self-contradictory
E
using empirical evidence to support one definition of a key term of the argument over another
Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public’s scientific understanding. But these predictions are baseless. Throughout recorded history, dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that programs that emphasize paranormal incidents will not impede the public’s scientific understanding. This is based on the fact that throughout history, story-tellers have told stories involving paranormal elements, but the public’s scientific understanding has steadily advanced during this time.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paranormal stories have impeded (meaning, obstructed or hindered) the public’s understanding of science, even if they haven’t completely stopped advancement of that understanding. Something can still advance while being impeded.
A
It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by another phenomenon.
The author fails to consider that the public’s understanding of science can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by paranormal stories. This is why the author’s premise does not establish that TV shows about paranormal incidents won’t impede understanding.
B
It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected.
The author does not assume that correlation proves cause. The author’s conclusion does not assert cause or rely on an assumption of cause. In fact, the author asserts that one thing (paranormal stories) does not cause another thing (impeding of understanding).
C
It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former does not impede the latter.
The conclusion is that one thing does not impede another thing. Pointing out a failure to consider what could be true “even if [one thing] does not impede [another thing]” does not show why the argument is weak. Any weakness must relate to why one thing can impede another thing.
D
It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not also affect the former.
The author does not overlook the possibility that a causal relationship is also reversed. The author does not, for example, assert that paranormal stories can’t affect public understanding because public understanding has affected paranormal stories.
E
It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former.
The contention is that paranormal TV shows impede scientific understanding. The author believes this is baseless. But the author does not cite to the fact that the impeding of scientific understanding has persisted despite increases in the pervasiveness of paranormal stories.