PrepTest 120

Correct. Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Scientists: Paranormal TV shows make people superstitious, thus hurting science.

TV Exec: History is full of paranormal entertainment, but science kept advancing, so the scientists are making a baseless argument.

Answer Anticipation:
The scientists that the TV exec is rebutting make a causal argument—paranormal TV shows cause people to be superstitious, which causes them to have a lower understanding of science.

This is important to note to understand how the TV Exec's rebuttal functions. Essentially, she brings up what she believes to be counterexamples—showing that the cause has always been present (entertainment has always featured paranormal phenomena), but that hasn't prevented science from advancing. In other words, the cause has always been there, but the effect hasn't.

Only she doesn't bring up a counterexample because she doesn't show that the effect was absent. Her argument discusses science advancing, but the effect noted by the Scientists isn't that these shows stop science. Instead, they claim that it "impede[s]" science—hindering it, but not necessarily stopping its progress.

The TV Exec ignores the possibility that this type of entertainment has slowed science down while still allowing some progress, so we should look for an answer highlighting that possibility.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the reason that the TV Exec's argument fails. The scientists are making a relative claim—science has been slowed down. The TV Exec treats showing that it hasn't stopped as rebutting that claim. In other words, she fails to recognize that science can steadily advance even when it's being impeded by paranormal entertainment causing the populace to be less scientifically literate.
Key Takeaway:
When you have trouble understanding an abstract answer, find an element that you can match to a concrete idea from the stimulus, and then unpack it from there.

Incorrect. The TV Exec is rebutting a causal argument with what she believes to be a counterexample, so she's not relying on her own correlation/causation jump.

Incorrect. This answer is hard to understand, so let's try to unpack it. The TV Exec believes that paranormal entertainment doesn't impede scientific progress, so we can anchor our understanding there. In other words, the phenomenon is the entertainment and the other is the scientific progress. Does the TV Exec fail to consider that paranormal television can indirectly affect scientific understanding? No—she believes that it doesn't, and she raises what she believes to be a successful counter to that claim. Additionally, the opposing claim is that this entertainment does impede scientific understanding, so the first half of this answer about "affecting" another and not "impeding" another is incomplete at best.

Incorrect. The TV Exec doesn't ignore the possibility of reverse causality, as reverse causality is out of scope here. No one is arguing that a lack of scientific understanding in the public is leading to paranormal entertainment.

Incorrect. This answer isn't way off base, as it does provide a principle that would allow the conclusion of the TV Exec's argument to be drawn. However, for that to happen, it would need to be established that the latter phenomenon persisted despite "steady increases" in the pervasiveness of paranormal entertainment. However, there's no indication that this entertainment has "steadily increased," just that it's been around throughout recorded history.