to the top

#17 - Politician: A major social problem is children hurting

Administrator
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 3,249

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C)

This politician discusses the social problem of children who hurt other children, and the results of a recent experiment in which children were separated into two groups, one of which was shown a film that featured people hitting a “Bobo the Clown” doll. The other group was shown no film, and when the two groups got together in a room with a Bobo doll, most of the children who had seen the Bobo-hitting film hit the doll, while the majority of those who had seen no film did not hit the doll. The politician concludes, based on these results, that aggressive behavior is attributable, at least partially, to watching violent films.

The stimulus is followed by a Weaken question, so the correct answer choice will somehow undermine the politician’s argument, that the results of the experiment help to establish a link between watching violent films and aggressive behavior.

Answer choice (A): The fact that some (possible as few as one!) of the children chastised the doll punchers does not weaken the politician’s argument, which is that the aggressive behavior of the kids who watched the film lends support to the notion that watching violent films is to blame, at least in part, for the problem of aggressive behavior. Since this vague choice has no effect on the politician’s argument, it cannot be the right answer to this Weaken question.

Answer choice (B): The fact that the one most aggressive child did not see the film does not weaken the politician’s argument that films can contribute to aggressive behavior—it merely shows that aggressiveness can exist in the absence of violent films as well.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If, as this choice provides, the children who had seen the film were no more likely to hit other children, that weakens the politicians argument. While some children may have mimicked the Bobo-hitting that they had seen in the film, if the hitting was limited to that specific context, and they were no more likely to hit actual children, that weakens the politician’s claim that watching such movies leads to more generally aggressive behavior in general (or that such a claim is established by the results of the Bobo study).

Answer choice (D): This choice supports the notion that children imitate behavior that they see, be it in films or in person; if anything, this would lend support to the author’s argument. In any case, this certainly does not weaken the politician’s argument, so it cannot be the right answer to this Weaken question.

Answer choice (E): Regardless of the children’s previous familiarity with the Bobo dolls, the children who saw films of people hitting the Bobo dolls were more likely to hit the dolls themselves. This choice does not weaken the author’s argument, so it cannot be the right answer choice.
saranash1
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 3:51 pm
Points: 0

I chose D because I saw this answer as an example where the effect occurred but the cause did not.

Why is this incorrect?
David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:25 am
Points: 743

saranash1 wrote:I chose D because I saw this answer as an example where the effect occurred but the cause did not.

Why is this incorrect?


Hello saranash1,

If you look carefully, the problem (assuming that this is in LR section 1; you didn't say what section) is that hurting other *children* is the problem the politician discusses, not hurting a doll. So answer choice D, about punching Bobo, wouldn't be relevant. C is better because it shows that poor Bobo aside, the kids aren't more likely to hurt other *kids*.

Hope this helps,
David
jmramon
LSAT Leader
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:46 pm
Points: 48

Thank you for explaining this problem, Powerscore! I do have one question though. Is the second sentence in the stimulus the main conclusion, and the first sentence a mere factual statement rather than a subsidiary conclusion?
AthenaDalton
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 3:54 pm
Points: 292
Location: Chicago, IL

jmramon wrote:Thank you for explaining this problem, Powerscore! I do have one question though. Is the second sentence in the stimulus the main conclusion, and the first sentence a mere factual statement rather than a subsidiary conclusion?


You're correct that the second sentence is the main conclusion. :-D The first sentence functions as a factual statement -- the politician doesn't provide any premises to support it, so it's not a conclusion.