Evidently, watching too much

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact18% picked this

   Many people overestimate the dangers that the world poses to them, regardless of the amount

   The author wasn't ever claiming that only people who watch a lot of TV end up overestimating the danger of the world. The fact that "some people who have never smoked cigarettes don't get lung cancer" does not weaken the idea that "smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer".

   18%
2. B

   Strengthens2% picked this

   A person is less likely to live in an area that is prone to natural disasters if that person watches an above-average amount of

   This helps the author's point --- the people watching lots of TV are actually at lower-than-average risk of being harmed by a natural disaster, and yet they fear being a natural disaster victim more than others? This suggests that they are indeed overestimating the danger the world poses.

   2%
3. C

   Strengthens2% picked this

   People who watch a below-average amount of television tend to have a fairly accurate idea of the likelihood that they will be

   This reinforces the author's supposed causal connection between "watch too much TV —c? overestimate danger of world", by giving us a No Cause, No Effect strengthener: The people who watch little TV end up having an accurate (non-overestimated) sense of danger.

   2%
4. D

   Strengthens, if anything4% picked this

   People who are well informed about the risks posed by natural disasters tend to have become well informed in some way

   This reinforces the idea that TV is a bad source of getting a good perception about the dangers of the world. It says that people who are well-informed about risks are not getting that from watching TV.

   4%
5. E

   Correct75% picked this

   A person is more likely to watch an above­ average amount of television if that person lives in an area that is prone to

   Why this is right

   This answer gives us the Third Factor alternate explanation for the correlation. The evidence correlated these two things: watch lots of tv || fear natural disasters The author then concluded that "watching lots of TV" was a cause of "fearing natural disasters". This answer adds something to that correlation: watch lots of tv || fear natural disasters + live in natural disaster zone Common sense would tell us that it's more likely that the fear of natural disasters is coming from "living in an area prone to natural disasters" than that it's coming from watching lots of TV. Since this answer provides an alternative explanation for the correlation (they're not afraid of natural disasters because watching TV inflates their sense of risk, but because they live in an area that's more prone to natural disasters), it weakens the argument. It also suggests that the people who are more afraid of natural disasters are not actually over-estimating their risk. They are more at risk.

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

   75%