PT154 S4 Q22 ExplanationEducator: Environmental factors clearly have

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   No Impact or Strengthens29% picked this

   Athletic ability varies, even among siblings, and teenagers who have demonstrable athletic ability are more likely than those who do

   Athletic ability is not an environmental trait, it's an innate one. Environmental factors can certainly lead someone to augment or diminish their abilities, but this answer is explaining the variation within families in a way that seems closer to Innate factors than Environmental factors. The tall / fast / strong kid is more likely to play sports than the short / slow / weak kid. That's not environmental factors having effect; that's innate physiological factors.

   29%
2. B

   Too Weak12% picked this

   Some teenagers, even those in schools that do not have any sports programs, are more enthusiastic about participating in

   The word "some" is wrong 98% of the time you see it in Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox. Can we really weaken this argument by saying, "Oh, author, did you know that at least one teenager exists who likes sports more than their parents?" It isn't even really worth figuring out whether that data point agrees or disagrees, when it's just one measly data point that can't sway this conversation much.

   12%
3. C

   Out of Scope: adults' enthusiasm10% picked this

   Adults’ enthusiasm for participating in sports generally is directly proportional to the extent to which they participated in

   This seems to suggest that environmental factors (did you play sports growing up) can have a big effect on whether an adult will participate in sports. But it's not doing much to assess how that adult got into spots as teenager in the first place (Environmental or Innate factors?)

   10%
4. D

   Correct43% picked this

   The proportion of teenagers who participate in sports varies greatly from society to society and

   Why this is right

   This is a legendarily horrid correct answer. It's in my top 20. It has nothing to do with either Premise, which is why it's easy to dismiss on a first pass. But, it allows us to push back against the author's conclusion. There aren't that many types of factors in the world: Environmental, Innate, and maybe that's it (random factors?) Given that the proportion of teens who plays sports varies greatly across societies and decades, the author (who thinks Environmental factors have little effect) would have to say that Innate factors are the reason? Even if you grant the author the suspect idea that Innate factors vary greatly across societies, nobody's gonna say that Innate factors vary greatly from decade to decade. Since these data points are not compatible with a "Innate factors determine whether teens participate in sports" hypothesis, they suggest instead that Environmental factors must be at play here.

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

   43%
5. E

   No Impact / Strengthens6% picked this

   School programs designed to encourage inactive teenagers to participate in sports widely vary in success, with only a

   We already knew that these school programs are generally ineffective (51% or more of them). But that premise left plenty of room for the idea that some of them are effective, even highly successful. Since this fact is fully absorbed within the negative space of the 2nd premise, it doesn't change the conversation. And since the conclusion isn't totally absolute, just "Environmental factors clearly have little effect", the author is willing to tolerate some tiny exceptions to his broad generalization. To the extent that this answer says, "Hey ... we've tried tons of different approaches, and only a few have worked", it actually beats back one of our anticipated objections (what if your school programs are just lame, and a well-designed one would actually work?) This answer suggests that we've tried a wide spectrum of approaches, and the fact that the vast majority of them failed starts to help the author's case.

   6%