PT117 · S2 · Q7 Increases in the occurrence of hearing

We could agree with the author and argue that this recommendation is going to fail to significantly reduce hearing loss in teenagers, because "even if this did make headphones more safe, the real big source of hearing loss is _____ ." But this answer is stopping that line of attack. It's saying, "Nope. Headphones really are the #1 threat. Thus, making headphones less dangerous could have a significant effect on the hearing loss problem."

This is just (A) on steroids. Both of them are making it clear that if we're trying to make a significant difference on hearing loss for teenagers, the most important thing to address is their headphones. The author, meanwhile, is saying "this thing you want to do to make headphones safer isn't going to make a significant different".

We don't care about parents' listening behaviors, in terms of whether they listen to music at dangerous levels. We only care about teenagers, since the conclusion is only about what effect the recommendation could have on teens' hearing. If an answer said that "Parents listen to music at a loud volume, and their children copy that behavior", that could start to make it more relevant, but this is just about parents, and we have no common sense way of assuming that teenagers do / don't copy their parents in this regard.

The author's conclusion is hypothetical --- "making this type of headphones available would not have [a certain effect]". This answer is saying, in reality some companies are planning to make these headphones. That doesn't have any impact on the author's conclusion. Once these are on the market and we can see whether teenagers are buying them / using them, then this could help us judge the conclusion, but "we plan to make X" doesn't tell us anything about whether "X will / won't have a significant effect on Y".