Self-study
Bardis: Extensive research shows that television advertisements affect the buying habits of consumers. ████ ██████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ██████ █████ ████████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
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.
Identify and Describe Flaw
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.
24.
The reasoning in Bardis's argument ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████
a
relies on an ████████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████████████ ███ █████ ███████ ████████
Bardis never claims that advertisements can cause violent behavior. His conclusion is that violent imagery on TV does not cause violent behavior.
b
fails to distinguish █ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ████████
Bardis does in fact distinguish between a type of behavior (violence) and a type of stimulus (violent imagery) since his conclusion is that televised violent imagery does not cause violence.
c
undermines its own ████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███████████
Bardis does not question the persuasive power of advertising. He acknowledges that commercials cause certain behaviors, but distinguishes those commercials from media with violent imagery.
d
concludes that a █████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █████
Some argue that violent imagery can cause violence on the basis of the fact TV ads can influence consumers. Bardis points out a fault in this argument, but concludes on the basis of this fault that violent imagery cannot cause violence.
e
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ █ ████████ █████
The argument addressed by Bardis concludes that violent imagery sometimes causes violent behavior. Bardis argues that violent imagery doesn't cause violent behavior. So the argument addressed by Bardis is concerned with the same issue.