PrepTest 118

Incorrect. First, it's the opposing point that compares the effect of ads to violent TV. Second, even it says that TV causes violent behavior, not that ads do.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't question the persuasiveness of ads, which has been established. Instead, it distinguishes between ads and TV shows to highlight why one has a specific effect on behavior and the other doesn't.

Incorrect. The argument pretty clearly delineates between behavior and watching TV.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Ads work. From this, some conclude that violent TV causes violence. However, there's a key difference between ads and TV, so violent TV doesn't cause violence.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has a key feature that suggests a specific flaw—one that's easy to miss. Yes, there was a study ("extensive research") done, but there's no indication there's a sampling flaw. Yes, there's a comparison drawn, but Bardis is pointing out a difference in that comparison, thus he's not committing a bad comparison flaw. Yes, there's a causal conclusion (or, rather, an anti-causal one), but the argument isn't based on a correlation since the premise is that TV ads "affect" buying habits—thus establishing causality.

So what common flaw is hinted at, and by what feature of the stimulus?

An opposing point is raised, and Bardis concludes the polar opposite—some say that violent TV causes violence; Bardis says it doesn't. When an argument reaches the polar opposite conclusion of an opposing point, there's a great chance that it's doing so after pointing out a flaw in that argument. However, pointing out a flaw in an opposing point is only enough to conclude that they might be wrong, not that they are wrong. When the argument uses a flaw in an opposing point to reach the opposite conclusion, it's committing an absence of evidence flaw. Let's find that answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is the generic absence of evidence flaw answer. There's a difference between ads and violent TV that calls the conclusion of the opposing point into question, but that's not enough to conclude that the opposing conclusion is false, just that it might be.

Key Takeaway:
While reviewing Errors in Reasoning questions, be sure to look for elements that you can identify in future questions that are inherent to that flaw—it makes it a lot easier to spot them quickly. Those elements won't always be involved in a flaw—for example, there wasn't a sampling flaw here despite the argument being based on research—but they make it a lot easier to think through 2-3 potential flaws and find the right one(s) quickly.

Incorrect. Bardis directly rebuts the conclusion of the opposing point, so there's no straw-man argument here.