Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 3 · Question 16

Incorrect. This answer brings up people who overestimate their odds despite not watching TV, but, as we said in the Anticipation, "[m]any" people don't counteract an argument about an overall trend.

Incorrect. This answer eliminates an alternative cause (people living in disaster-prone areas and thus actually being at a heightened risk of a natural disaster), so this answer is more in the area of a correct Strengthen answer.

Incorrect. By bringing up people who lack the cause and don't see the effect, this answer falls into a common Strengthen answer pattern.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish whether these well-informed people have an accurate assessment of the dangers the world poses to them, so its impact on the argument is unclear.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Study Ð People who watch more TV are more likely to think they'll be the victim of a natural disaster
Conclusion Ð Watching too much TV makes you overestimate risks

Answer Anticipation:
Weaken questions see correlation/causation flaws more frequently than any other flaw, so you should always be on the lookout for causal language in the conclusion when dealing with this question type.

In this question, we see it right off the bat—Òcan lead . . . toÓ. So the conclusion here is that watching too much TV can lead you to overestimate your risk of dying in a natural disaster. Is that based on a correlation? Yep—we get correlative language in the premise (Òmore likely toÓ). Since the argument jumps from correlation to causation, we should look for answers that fall into the common patterns:

(1) Identify an alternative cause
(2) Counterexamples (though since this argument is statistical—Òmore likely toÓ—this answer is unlikely to be correct as a handful of counterexamples doesn't disprove the overall trend)
(3) Reversed causality (maybe being naturally scared of natural disasters causes you to watch more TV?)

Answer Explanation:
This answer identifies the alternative cause that (B) eliminated, so this answer weakens the argument. If the people who are more likely to think that they will be the victim of a natural disaster live in an area where that's true, then that's likely the cause of the correlation seen, not the TV.

Key Takeaway:
Be on the lookout for correlation/causation flaws in Weaken questions. They show up nearly 50% of the time and, when they do, there are common answers you can be on the lookout for.