June 2013 LSAT lr 17

Hi @kenken, Thanks for the question! Yup, I think you got the general idea here. Remember, the general argument in this passage is about how watching violent films is at least partly responsible for the aggressive behavior of children hurting other children. And the study shows us that watching certain films will make children more likely to punch the Bobo dolls, which might make us think that they’d also be more likely to punch other children. But (C) basically comes in and says that in the end, the people who watched the film weren’t more likely to punch other children than the people who didn’t watch the film. So maybe they’re more inclined to hit inanimate objects, but just that, it doesn’t spread to actually hitting children. And that would weaken the politician’s argument that watching violent films contributes to to children hurting other children. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.