Answer Choice B, C, E

Hello @DavidW, Conclusion: Developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness. Why? Premise: Because, if they lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness may be exacerbated. Do you think that this conclusion is properly drawn? I do not. Here is my criticism of the argument. The only premise supporting the conclusion is that a hobby can sometimes intensify loneliness. Even so, isn't it still possible that hobbies are sometimes successful? There is not enough information here to determine that getting a hobby is "not a successful strategy." The argument needs to assume something that defends it from my attack. Remember to try the negation test to determine if an answer choice is required. Let's look at B, C, and E. B. This is a good match for my prediction. It defends the argument by saying, "A successful strategy will never intensify loneliness." We know that a hobby sometimes does. S --> never IL Contrapositive: sometimes IL ---> not S. (Sometimes is the negation of never.) Let's try negating it: A strategy that sometimes intensifies loneliness can still be successful. This defeats the argument! It destroys the link between the conclusion and its only premise. C. I understand why you chose this one, as I believe that it does strengthen the argument. But the question remains, is it necessary? No, because the author never leans on this assumption. Even if some kids who don't make friends continue their interest, the conclusion can still stand. E. We do not care about the motivation of shy adolescents in this case. It doesn't matter why they do it. The premise remains that they sometimes make friends, whether they are trying to or not.