PrepTest 45, Section 3, Question 24

Difficulty:

Bardis: Extensive research shows that television advertisements affect the buying habits of consumers. Some people conclude from this that violent television imagery sometimes causes violent behavior. But the effectiveness of television advertisements could be a result of those televised images being specifically designed to alter buying habits, whereas television violence is not designed to cause violent behavior. Hence we can safely conclude that violent television imagery does not cause violence.

Question

The reasoning in Bardis's argument is flawed because that argument

relies on an illegitimate inference from the fact that advertisements can change behavior to the claim that advertisements can cause violent behavior

fails to distinguish a type of behavior from a type of stimulus that may or may not affect behavior

undermines its own position by questioning the persuasive power of television advertising

concludes that a claim is false on the basis of one purported fault in an argument in favor of that claim

fails to consider the possibility that the argument it disputes is intended to address a separate issue

Raise Hand ✋

Explanations

Bardis on violence

Ads = Purchase, so TV Violence ≠ Violence?

This one's word soup. Let's break down the speaker's argument:

Research shows ads affect buying habits. Got it.

Some argue that, because ads influence buying habits, violent TV imagery sometimes causes real violence. Note the jump from "influence buying habits" to "cause violence." That's a stretch, but I have to accept that this is something some folks conclude.

Then Bardis tells us that ads may be effective because they seek to influence buying habits, whereas violent TV isn't produced with the goal of producing violence. Sure, but I really hope Bardis doesn't finish this off by saying something like, "Therefore, violent TV doesn't cause violence behavior." That would be dumb.

Would you look at that. Bardis did the dumb. Boo Bardis. Boo. They conclude, "violent television imagery does not cause violence." This is most definitely not proven by their evidence.

Here's an easy objection. The last time you tripped, did you mean to trip? Probably not. Did the thing that caused you to trip still cause you to trip? Yes. Intent can certainly influence outcomes, but we can't assume something isn't causal just because it doesn't mean to be.

Turns out this is a Flaw question. So the right answer will be (1) something the argument actually did, and (2) the thing it did wrong.

Let's dive in.

No chance. Bardis never argues that ads cause violent behavior, only that ads can influence buying habits. Our argument didn't do this, so it's out.

Nah, this is a trap. I could see newer LR students picking this because it seems to address the cause-effect relationship teased apart in the passage. But this simply isn't what the author does wrong. The author doesn't fail to distinguish a type of behavior (presumably violence) from a stimulus (violent TV) that may or may not affect the behavior. If anything, the author argues that this stimulus does not produce this behavior.

Nope. The author doesn't question the power of TV advertising. If anything, they full on acknowledge it and accept existing research. If the argument didn't do it, you can't pick it. Period.

Perfect! Let's break this down. Concludes that a claim is false (TV violence does not cause actual violence) on the basis of one purported fault in an argument in favor of that claim (that intent is why TV ads influence buying habits, but there's a lack of intent with TV violence). This is the answer.

No. The argument Bardis disputes is that violent TV imagery sometimes leads to violent behavior. That disputed argument doesn't address a separate issue. Can't pick.