Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions - - Question 13
When a group of children who have been watching television programs that include acts of violence is sent to play wit...
joryjesAugust 19, 2018
Answer Choice D
I read this choice several times but opted not to choose it because I feel like it weakens the argument by casting doubt on the conclusion that there is a direct correlation between watching violent television and being more violent, so I chose answer choice A since I thought it was more of a broad answer choice but perhaps too broad. Please explain.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This stimulus presents an argument, the conclusion of which is "therefore, children at play can be prevented from committing violent acts by not being allowed to watch violence on television."
The question stem asks you to identify the missing premise. This is thus a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question; the correct answer, when negated, will make the argument in the stimulus fall apart.
The argument assumes that violence on TV is the sole cause of children committing violent acts while playing. How do we know this? Because the conclusion says that child violence can be prevented just by prohibiting kids from watching violence on TV.
Answer choice (D) identifies this assumption: "There are no other differences between the two groups of children that might account for the difference in violent behavior." When you negate this answer choice, it reads: "There are other differences between the two groups of children that might account for the difference in violent behavior." If this is true, then preventing kids from watching violence on TV won't solve the problem of kids committing violent acts while playing, because there might be some cause for those violent acts other than seeing violence on TV.
Answer choice (A) is too broad to help with this particular argument, because the premises and the conclusion here are specific to children and violence, not violence in society overall. When negated, answer choice (A) does not make this argument fall apart; that's how you know it's not the correct answer for this question.
Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
CeciOctober 12, 2018
But I thought we were trying to support that watching violence on TV makes kids violent? So why do we need an alternative answer when that's what we're supporting? And obviously that's not what we're supporting so how do we know when we're looking for an alternative answer? Thanks in advance!
MehranOctober 13, 2018
Hi @Ceci. Honestly we don't fully understand your question here, especially in light of the detailed explanation already posted above.
It may help to understand that this question relies on cause and effect reasoning, and that one way to strength a cause-and-effect argument is to rule out alternative possible causes.
The stimulus concludes that children at play can be prevented from committing violent acts by not being allowed to watch violence on television. The premise in support of this conclusion relies on the comparative greater number of violent acts committed by children who have been watching violent programs relative to kids who watched nonviolent programs. There is a causal inference here: the violent TV shows caused the kids to be violent. But what if there were some other differences between the two groups of children that could account for the relative rates of violence?
Answer choice (D) rules out that possibility, thereby strengthening this particular argument.
