Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 4 · Question 22

Incorrect. This would tend to strengthen the argument by implying that natural talent, not environment, determines the likelihood a teen will participate in sports.

Incorrect. Again, this would tend to strengthen the argument. Teens without the environmental factors of parental support or school programming still sometimes spontaneously want to play sports. So, they must have some intrinsic drive that doesn't come from their environment.

Incorrect. This correctly identifies an environmental factor causing enthusiasm for sports, but it's for adults, not teenagers. We need to weaken the conclusion that environmental factors don't determine sports participation in teens.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
An educator says environmental factors don't do much to determine a youth's participation in sports. Family life must not be determining this, because often one teen in a family is an athlete and the others aren't involved in sports. And, school programs to urge sedentary teens to take up sports rarely work (Preposterous! What teenager doesn't feel instantly motivated to start playing sports after being reminded by a faculty member of how inactive they are?).

Answer Anticipation:
Keep in mind that environmental factors are the key here. The argument boils down to "environmental factors DO NOT CAUSE sports participation by teenagers." If you can demonstrate that in some cases environmental factors do cause teen sports-playing, then you've weakened this argument. (Keep in mind here that they mean "environmental" as in "a person's social, societal, and physical contexts," not as in "birds, trees, and the climate.")

Answer Explanation:
If the society and decade you're born into help to determine your likelihood of teenage sports participation, then it's safe to say environmental factors play a role in driving the likelihood that teens will play sports. This answer works!

Key Takeaway:
Even arguments alleging NO causation are causal arguments and can be handled the same way. Weakening a "does not cause" conclusion is the same logical task as strengthening a "causes" conclusion. Strengthening a "does not cause" conclusion is the same thing as weakening a "causes" conclusion.

Incorrect. This is too weak to help. It's basically just rephrasing part of the stimulus, where it says programs designed to get inactive teens to play sports are mostly unsuccessful.