Logical Reasoning

PT3 · S4 · Q12 The more television children watch

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge.

Conclusion (therefore)

If U.S. children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television.

Intermediate Conclusion

The more TV children watch, the less competent they are in math.

Evidence

U.S. children watch a lot more TV than South Korean children, and U.S. children also know much less advanced measurement and geometry than South Korean children.

Evaluate

The main conclusion involves an Implicit Causal claim. When we say, , we're implying that Y would lead to X.

So the conclusion is implying that watching less TV would improve U.S. children's math performance.

Usually, causal conclusions are built on comparative evidence (which we call Curious Facts).

Curious Fact: how come less than 15% of U.S. children understand adv measurement / geometry while 40% of South Korean children do?

Author's Causal Explanation: Way more U.S. kids than South Korean kids watch 5+ hours of TV per day, so the TV watching is causing the math deficiencies.

Whenever we see this Explain Curious Fact template, we consider 1. could there be an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact? 2. how plausible is the Author's Explanation?

Goal

Most of the time on Necessary Assumption (and Flaw, Weaken, and Evaluate), the correct answer deals with Alternate Explanations, so the correct answer will probably rule out an alternate explanation for the math gap (maybe the way we teach math in the U.S. just doesn't emphasize measurement or geometry? maybe it's after-school sports, not too much tv, that's distracting kids?)

But it might otherwise supply some idea that's needed for the author's causal story to be plausible.

12.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

  1. Children in the United States

    Bad Assumption

    This answer would weaken, by supplying an alternate explanation. It'd be saying, "U.S. kids don't do worse at measurement and geometry because they watch too much TV; they do worse because they're less interested." Authors are never assuming an idea that would weaken their argument.

    1% picked this

  2. South Korean children are more

    Bad Assumption

    This one is somewhat tempting, because we might interpret "more disciplined" to mean "less likely to space out and watch tv; more likely to get their math homework done". But schoolwork refers to work done at school, not all work assigned by school. The argument isn't necessarily claiming that U.S. kids fail to do their schoolwork. If anything, the argument seems to be more about homework than work done at school, since the author thinks that TV is to blame, which would only be a distraction when it comes to being home. The negation wouldn't weaken, because even if U.S. kids are equally disciplined about doing their math problems at school, the author could still say that "when South Korean kids get home from school, they continue to work on math, whereas U.S. kids just veg out in front of the TV."

    2% picked this

  3. Children who want to do

    Reversal / Negation

    Out of Scope (want) / Too Strong (will) This answer looks suspiciously like the conclusion. We never expect to see a correct answer that just rewords one claim from the argument. The conclusion was about what would be required to achieve a certain result. It was hypothetical. This answer is making a definite prediction about actual children. The author doesn't have to assume that kids who want to do well at measurement / geometry WILL watch less TV. She is only claiming that they SHOULD watch less TV.

    11% picked this

  4. A child’s ability in advanced

    Too Strong

    This gets into too strong of a guarantee. The conclusion is about a requirement: do better in math —requires→ watch less tv This answer is written like a guarantee: watch less tv → do better in math The author hasn't committed herself to the idea that watching less than an hour ensures an uptick in measurement / geometry abilities. She has only committed to the idea that if they don't watch less TV, they won't do well in math.

    11% picked this

  5. Correct

    The instruction in advanced measurement

    Why this is right

    This has the lovable Defender "not", so we negate it and see if it weakens. It would definitely weaken to say, "Hey author, the math gap isn't because of watching more TV. It's because the instruction in SK for measurement / geometry is substantially better than the instruction for that is in the U.S." This answer is Ruling Out and Alternate Explanation for the curious fact.

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

    75% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free