Subscription pricing
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 ████████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████████████ ███ █████ ███████ ████████
b
fails to distinguish █ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ████████
c
undermines its own ████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███████████
d
concludes that a █████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █████
e
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ █ ████████ █████