PT157 S2 Q22 ExplanationBecause of the ubiquity of television

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Negation17% picked this

   No children who spend their free time reading stories fail to develop a lifelong

   This answer says no children who spend free time reading stories fail to develop a lifelong interest in literature. Cutting through the double negative: children who read -> lifelong interest. This makes reading sufficient for developing interest, but the argument needs reading to be necessary for interest, not sufficient. The argument's gap is: few read -> few develop interest. To validate this, we need: developing interest requires reading (interest -> read). This answer instead says: reading guarantees interest (read -> interest). Knowing that readers always develop interest does not tell us anything about whether non-readers might also develop interest through other means. This is the classic sufficient-necessary confusion.

   17%
2. B

   Correct51% picked this

   Only those people who currently spend their free time reading stories will develop a lifelong

   Why this is right

   This answer says only those who currently spend their free time reading stories will develop a lifelong interest in literature. The word "only" establishes reading as a necessary condition: lifelong interest -> currently reads stories. Contrapositive: does not currently read -> will not develop lifelong interest. The evidence tells us few children currently read. Combined with this assumption: few children read, and only readers develop lifelong interest, therefore few children will develop lifelong interest. The conclusion follows directly. This is the precise bridge needed: reading during childhood is the only pathway to lifelong literary interest.

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

   51%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal5% picked this

   No children who grow up in a household that lacks a television fail to spend their

   This answer says children growing up without a television in the household do not fail to read stories. Parsing the double negative: no TV -> reads stories. This describes what happens in TV-free homes but says nothing about developing a lifelong interest in literature. The conclusion is about lifelong literary interest, and this answer never mentions that concept. Even if we know that TV-free children read, we still have no link between reading and developing lifelong interest. The assumption needs to connect reading behavior to the conclusion's outcome, and this answer stops at the reading step without reaching the literary interest step.

   5%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match22% picked this

   Few people who watch a great deal of television develop a lifelong

   This answer says few people who watch a great deal of television develop lifelong literary interest. The evidence states that children prefer TV over reading because of its visual appeal, but it does not say children watch "a great deal" of television. A child might watch only a small amount of TV but still find it more appealing than reading. This answer addresses heavy TV watchers, while the evidence describes a broader group -- children who simply do not read, regardless of how much TV they watch. The assumption does not accurately connect to the evidence's population. Additionally, this answer does not establish reading as necessary for literary interest; it only says heavy TV watching prevents it.

   22%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal5% picked this

   Few children who spend their free time reading stories

   This answer says few children who spend free time reading stories watch television. This describes reading children's TV habits but says nothing about developing lifelong literary interest. The conclusion is about whether children will develop a lifelong interest in literature, and this answer never addresses that concept. Whether young readers watch TV is irrelevant to bridging the gap between "few read" and "few will love literature." Like answer C, this answer operates entirely in the reading-and-TV-watching domain without ever reaching the literary-interest domain that the conclusion requires.

   5%