Please explain

please explain

I’m happy to help. As always, let’s start with the question stem. We are looking for an answer that is parallel in its flawed reasoning. In order to find that answer, we need to first understand the reasoning in the passage. There are a few premises: - People habitually engaged in conversations, and now television competes for attention - Tv on -> conversation in family stops - No communication -> family ties snap And then there is a conclusion: ONLY solution is to get rid of television. Before moving on to the answer options, can we spot the flaw in the logic? Note how strong that conclusion is - the ONLY solution is to get rid of television. What in the premises indicated that television is the sole cause of the problem the conclusion is trying to address? That would have to be true if getting rid of television is the ONLY solution! Answer C has that same problem. There is a chain of premises about spectating, rather than engaging in sports, and how without physical exercise, health deteriorates. Again, the conclusion is that the ONLY remedy is to eliminate spectator sports. Again, this reasoning assumes that spectator sports is the ONLY cause of the problem: health deteriorations. And nothing in the premises told us that! I hope that helps. Please let us know if you have further questions.

How is D different from C? Thanks

@Magneto, Great question. The argument is basically saying that TV On - >No communication - >Family ties become frayed and stop The author concludes that the only solution is to get rid of the TV (which is the negation of TV On) The problem with this line of reasoning is the author is assuming that if the sufficient condition is negated, the necessary condition must also be negated. TV On - >No communication - >Family ties become frayed and stop and the author thinks that TV Off - >Communication - >Family ties not frayed This is the flaw of the argument; it's invoking failure of the sufficient condition to invoke the failure of the necessary condition, and this is incorrect logic. In the answer choices, we want an answer that exhibits this same flaw. (D) says, "Once people were willing to tailor their day to the constraints of a bus or train schedule; now they are spoiled by the private car. The only solution is for government to offer financial incentives to encourage the use of public transportation." The problem with this answer choice is that there aren't any conditional statements that can be diagrammed, so there is no way for this argument to exhibit the same flaw that the stimulus does in invoking the failure of the sufficient condition to invoke the failure of the necessary condition. The flaw that this answer choice is showing is one of assuming that its proposed solution is the only possible solution; it doesn't consider other potential solutions, nor does it provide evidence that the solution it mentioned is the only one that would actually work. This is a different flaw from the one in the stimulus. (C) says, "Once sports enthusiasts regularly engaged in sports, but now they watch spectator sports when they could be getting physical exercise. Without physical exercise, health deteriorates. Therefore, the only remedy is to eliminate spectator sports." With (C), it does contain diagrammable conditional statements that we can map out. Watch spectator sports - >no physical exercise - >poor health Then, (C) says the only solution is to get rid of spectator sports. Just as we saw in the stimulus, this argument makes the assumption that if we negate the sufficient condition (watch spectator sports0, then the necessary condition at the end of the chain (poor health) is also negated. As we discussed above, this is invoking the failure of the sufficient condition to conclude that the necessary condition is failed, and this is incorrect logic. This is the flaw that we observed in the stimulus, so this is our answer choice. Does this help? Let us know if you have any more questions!