PrepTest 139

Incorrect. It's unclear how chastisement plays into the argument, so this answer is out of scope. It's also too weak ("some") to undermine an argument about what "most" of the children did.

Incorrect. One outlier—even an extreme one—won't undermine a statistical argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Study:
Group 1 - Children who were shown a video of people beating up a clown doll
Group 2 - Not shown the film
Most of Group 1 later punched a Bobo doll; most of Group 2 didn't
Conclusion - Watching violent films at least partially causes violence

Answer Anticipation:
This argument relies on a recent study to reach its causal conclusion, so we should start by thinking about a sampling flaw, and a correlation/causation flaw.

For the sampling flaw, there's no specific information presented that should make us believe the sample was skewed. It isn't established that it's a large, random, representative sample, so an answer could bring this up, but the LSAT only infrequently brings up a sampling flaw without some indication in the stimulus itself that one is present.

For the correlation/causation flaw, the argument does rely on a correlation between those who watched the film and those who punched Bobo to reach its conclusion that watching violent films causes children to hit other children, and we can weaken the argument with our usual weakeners (ID an alternative cause; counterexamples—though this is less likely since the correlation is at the "most" level; reversed causality—this doesn't make sense here because of the timeline). But there's a much bigger problem here—punching a Bobo doll isn't violence towards another child! It's quite a jump to say that someone who's more likely to punch a doll is also more likely to punch a person. It'd be like arguing that someone who ate a pancake with a smiley face on it is more likely to be a cannibal. Any answer that brings up this discrepancy could serve as a correct weakener.

Answer Explanation:
Note the shift here—the results of the experiment showed that the children who watched the film were more likely to punch Bobo the Clown, but they were no more likely to punch other children. It could be that films showing people punching an object influence behavior towards that object, but this doesn't translate to violence against people. Kids can presumably tell the difference between another child and a terrifying nightmare doll. (Look it up . . . if you dare!)

Key Takeaway:
When an argument is using a "similar" situation to draw a conclusion, answers that bring up differences can impact that argument. Here, the argument assumed punching Bobo was similar to punching another child, so any answer highlighting that one may not translate to the other was under consideration.

Incorrect. This answer is too weak in only discussing what "[s]ome" children who didn't watch the film did. Additionally, an argument could be made that this strengthens the argument by suggesting that watching violence causes violence.

Incorrect. This answer is out of scope. It also doesn't connect the lack of knowledge of Bobo with either group, or with an even split between the group, which it would need to do to affect the argument in a negative way.