Bardis: Extensive research shows that

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   relies on an illegitimate inference from the fact that advertisements can change behavior to the claim that advertisements

   This answer choice says that the argument went from a Premise saying "TV ads can change behavior" to a conclusion saying "TV ads can cause violent behavior". Our actual conclusion was "Violent TV imagery does not cause violence", which is miles away from that supposed conclusion.

   9%
2. B

   Doesn't Fail to Distinguish14% picked this

   fails to distinguish a type of behavior from a type of stimulus that may or

   The argument seems to explicitly distinguish a type of behavior (violent behavior) from a type of stimulus (violent TV imagery) that may or may not affect behavior. The author clearly thinks of them distinctly since she ends up saying that you can have one (violent TV imagery) without the other (violent behavior).

   14%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Self-Contradiction5% picked this

   undermines its own position by questioning the persuasive power of

   This describes the famous Internal Contradiction flaw, in which the author says something early in the paragraph that undermines something she says later (or vice versa). This author never questioned the persuasive power of TV ads. She fully acknowledges their power. She attributes their power to the fact that they were intentionally designed to persuade, and since violent TV is not designed to influence behavior, she assumes the effect of violent TV will be not to persuade behavioral changes.

   5%
4. D

   Correct65% picked this

   concludes that a claim is false on the basis of one purported fault in an argument in

   Why this is right

   This describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, in which an author takes apart someone's attempt to prove X and then erroneously thinks that their failure to prove X is somehow proof that X is false. Some people have tried to argue that "violent TV causes violence" based on the fact that TV ads are effective at altering the behavior of the audience. The author shoots down this reasoning by pointing out a salient difference between ads and violent TV (the former is designed to alter behavior, the latter is not). Having exposed the weakness in her opponent's argument (its one purported fault), the author then does the illegal thing and overconfidently concludes the polar opposite of her opponent's conclusion. To be logically fair, she is only allowed at this point to conclude something like, "Thus, this argument fails to be persuasive / Hence, they are premature to draw this conclusion / Therefore, unless we have more evidence, we should not assume that violent TV causes violence." But she's not allowed to conclude with certainty that violent TV doesn't cause violence, especially given that she's produced no evidence to convince us of such a strong claim.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   65%
5. E

   Not Our Objection7% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that the argument it disputes is intended to address

   The argument the author is disputing is definitely not a separate issue. The argument the author disputes concludes that "violent TV sometimes causes violent behavior", and our author ends up concluding "violent TV does not cause violence". So our objection isn't that the author is fighting the wrong issue from what his opponent was talking about.

   7%