Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 4 · Question 4

Incorrect. First, this answer assumes a connection between a sedentary lifestyle and watching more TV. While maybe not the worst assumption, the fact that there's now "interactive" TV might call it more into question. And, in any case, it just needs to be true that watching more TV contributes to obesity, not that it's one of the "most" important causes of it.

Incorrect. The argument assumes that the amount of television watched causes an increase in obesity, not what type of television is watched. Only if cable TV increased the amount of TV watched would this answer need to be true, and that's not established by either the stimulus or this answer.

Incorrect. There could be other contributors to obesity, and the obesity rate could still be tied to the amount of TV watched. Genes aren't going to suddenly change across the North American population, and so an increase in TV watching could lead to an increase in obesity.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
For NA kids, obesity and amount of TV watched are correlated
Interactive TV has arrived
Prediction - NA kids will get more obese

Answer Anticipation:
This argument makes a prediction about what will happen based on a change—the arrival of interactive TV. That prediction is that obesity among North American children will go up.

Why does it believe that will happen? Because obesity and amount of TV watched are correlated. This leads to two flaws/assumptions that could be related to the correct answer!

The first is a Correlation/Causation flaw. The argument brings up a correlation between obesity and amount of TV watched (explicitly—it even uses the word "correlation"), but it assumes that it's a cause of obesity. It's possible that these two things are correlated but there's actually another cause. Any answer that is required for this correlation to actually prove causality will serve as a necessary premise.

The second is a Comparative flaw. It concludes that obesity "will increase", but it doesn't show that the amount of TV watched will increase with the arrival of interactive TV. By failing to establish the increase that it's relying on for the conclusion to be drawn, the argument is making an assumption. We should therefore also look for an answer stating that interactive TV will lead to an increase in the amount of TV watched.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the assumed cause of obesity—amount of TV watched—will increase with the noted change (arrival of interactive TV). Since the correlation is a positive one—more TV leads to more obesity—this answer must be true for the conclusion to hold. If kids won't watch more TV with the arrival of interactive TV, then there's no reason to believe that obesity will increase.

Key Takeaway:
There are some words that denote more than one type of logic and, therefore, suggest more than one type of flaw. The comparative causal words—"increase", "decrease"—are the most common ones on the exam, so be sure to always look out for them!

Incorrect. First off, projecting a decade into the future almost certainly isn't necessary for an argument that doesn't specifically tie itself to that timeline. Second, interactive TV just needs to be available widely enough to increase the overall amount of TV watched by North American children, it doesn't need to be available to all of those children. And third, even then, universal availability would extend outside of North America, and that's definitely not required for an argument that's limited to discussing North American children.