Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 4 · Question 12

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Study - Kids who watch TV/ads eat the same cereal as kids who don't watch TV/ads
Conclusion - Ads don't affect cereal preferences for children

Answer Anticipation:
This Weaken question features a study, so we should consider a Sampling flaw. However, there's no indication that the children involved in the study were unrepresentative in any way, or that the sample group was too small. As such, there's no reason to question the sample here.

With study-based questions, we should also consider whether there is a Correlation/Causation flaw. However, the conclusion here is that ads don't cause kids to prefer cereal, so that flaw isn't present.

However, this type of anti-causal conclusion itself suggests a specific type of answer—one that strengthens the causal relationship between the ads and breakfast cereal preference. Since the argument concludes such a relationship doesn't exist, evidence that it does will weaken it.

Normally, to strengthen a causal relationship, we'd eliminate alternative causes, find examples of the cause and effect going together, or find a control group. Here, however, the study has already shown that both groups of kids—those exposed to the cause and those not—have the same effect, i.e., the same preferences for cereal. As such, those normal methods won't work, as they've already been subverted.

Instead, we'll need to show that, for these kids, the ads did affect their preferences. That argument is much harder to make for the kids who didn't see any ads, so let's anticipate an answer that establishes some way that the ads could affect that group without them seeing them directly.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the kids who do watch ads influence their peers in their breakfast cereal choices. This strengthens the argument that it is the ads that have the given effect by showing how they can indirectly cause kids who don't see them to prefer certain cereals. Since it strengthens the argument that there is a causal relationship, it weakens the argument in the stimulus that reaches the opposite conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
Anti-causal conclusions tend to fall into one of two categories. The first is when a change had an expected outcome that seems to fail to happen, and the author concludes that the change didn't work. The second—the one we see here—is when a study shows a correlation or a lack of correlation that cuts against the causal relationship. In the latter case, the correct answer will likely provide evidence for the causal relationship, thus weakening the case against it.

Incorrect. This answer provides no reason to believe that this is the case for kids and breakfast cereals since a certain group of kids who weren't exposed to the ads still preferred those cereals. If anything, it suggests that something else must be in play—which would strengthen an argument against a certain causal relationship.

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that it looked at children who "had" and had not watched television, so the study started after the fact and looked backwards for a correlation.

Incorrect. By showing an example of ads not affecting the taste preferences of children, this answer strengthens the lack of a causal relationship between those factors.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about how ads affect children's preferences, so this answer about adults is out of scope.