Self-study
Jane: According to an article in this newsmagazine, children’s hand-eye coordination suffers when they spend a great amount of time watching television. ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████
█████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████████ ████████
Argument Breakdown: Lack of Support vs False Conclusion
Jane claims that Jacqueline and Mildred's TV time should be restricted, because of an article saying that children’s hand-eye coordination can be impaired by watching too much TV. In response, Alan comes to the opposite conclusion: that there's no need to restrict the children's TV watching. This is because the article in question is only talking about very young children, and Jacqueline and Mildred are a bit older.
The problem with Alan's argument is that his conclusion is too strong. All Alan's evidence tells us is that this one article doesn't apply to Jacqueline and Mildred. While that undermines Jane's support, it doesn't tell us that the opposite is true. Alan could have properly concluded that Jane gave no reason to believe Jacqueline and Mildred's TV time should be restricted; however, to affirm that there is no need for restriction goes too far. There could be plenty of reasons to restrict older children's TV watching, even if hand-eye coordination isn't one of them.
19.
Alan’s argument against Jane’s conclusion █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████████
a
It relies on ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████
There's no issue with Alan relying on the same article Jane uses: he's still discussing the same topic, and points out something in the article that Jane overlooked. The flaw is that Alan takes his argument beyond what the article supports, not that he relies on the article to begin with.
b
It confuses undermining ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████
Alan gives evidence that undermines Jane's support: the article she cites doesn't really apply to the situation she's discussing. However, Alan concludes that Jane's conclusion was false, and that the children's TV time should be unrestricted. In doing so, Alan mixes up a lack of support with a false conclusion.
c
It does not ███████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ █ ████ ██████
Alan and Jane both address the same main issue: whether Jacqueline and Mildred's TV watching should be restricted. If Alan went off on a tangent about a side issue like the particular definition of hand-eye coordination, or his dislike for the newsmagazine's font choices, then (C) would be correct.
d
It makes an ██████████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████
Although Alan makes an appeal to the article's authority, this appeal is not irrelevant. It's the same authority that Jane relies on, so the article's statements are a reasonable way to undermine Jane's argument.
e
It fails to ███████████ ███ ████████████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████████
The practice in consideration here is children watching unlimited TV, which has the potential consequence of impairing hand-eye coordination. Alan is clear on this cause and effect; he never suggests that trouble with hand-eye coordination is actually a cause of excessive TV watching. There's no confusion of cause and effect here.