#12 - The more television children watch, the less competent

[yrivers]

Could you explain the rationale behind correct answer E? It's about children in the US vs. South Korea -- and their ability in mathematics.

I think I understand it's E since the quality of education can be a 3rd variable that improves math knowledge (and perhaps even affect how much children watch TV.) I chose D because I thought the argument was assuming less TV guarantees studying/increased competency is math.

Also, I'm using the PowerScore Question Type Training Volume I for LR. The key in the back (which exam, question number, etc.) doesn't seem to match what's listed in this forum. I'm having some trouble finding answers...

[Dave Killoran]

Also, I'm using the PowerScore Question Type Training Volume I for LR. The key in the back (which exam, question number, etc.) doesn't seem to match what's listed in this forum. I'm having some trouble finding answers...

Hi Y,

Let me address the portion quoted above. If you look at the start of the key, you'll see a discussion of LR1, LR2, etc. In the key we list answers according to those two sections, but on the actual tests, the section position moves around. So, long story short, on the December 1991 LSAT, the two LR sections appeared as:


LR1 = Section #2
LR2 = Section #4


So, you were looking in Section 2, but since this question is from LR2 (not section #2), it was in Section 4. Confusing I know, but blame LSAC for their weird nomenclature. I've moved your question over to the right area, and will link in an explanation shortly.

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

For starters, here's a discussion of this problem from elsewhere on this Forum: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=7829

When we look at answer choice (E) directly, this is a classic Defender Assumption. In the argument, the author concludes that watching TV causes poor math performance. Well, one alternate cause would be that in the US the students receive instruction that is worse than the instruction in South Korea. Answer choice (E) eliminates that alternate cause, thus defending the conclusion against that line of attack. By the way, if you have the LRB, Defender Assumptions are covered in Chapter 11. If you are in one of our full-Length/Live Online/On Demand Courses, it's in your course books in Lesson Five.

The problem with answer choice (D) is that it is so specific. Where does "less that one hour of television a day" come from, and is the author absolutely committed to that? No, ad that's why it fails. The author believes that watching less TV helps performance, but there's no implication that it has to be less than one hour. This is a great answer to learn from—closely examine how the manipulated the idea of less and turned it into a very specific form of less. That's what made the answer incorrect.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[kevin.hussain24]

Hi,

How can you distinguish between supporter and defender? I been working a it trying to figure it out. To me this question sounded like a supporter question because of the logical gap. Can you explain to me how this question is a defender?

Thank You
Kevin H

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Kevin! The distinction between Supporters and Defenders for Assumption questions can be a bit tricky. Importantly, it is not a distinction that will make or break you - the LSAT isn't going to dock you points because you thought the correct answer to an Assumption question was a Supporter rather than a Defender! The key to attacking Assumption questions is not identifying, "Ahh, this is a Supporter question!", but instead 1) finding the logical gap between a conclusion and its premises, and 2) framing that gap in terms of what is absolutely necessary for the argument to function. Supporter/Defender is a conceptual tool that can help students to understand the nature of what an assumption is.

Kevin, you said that this sounded like a "supporter question". Don't think about Assumption questions as "Supporter questions" or "Defender questions". Rather, it's the assumptions (the answer choices) that fall into the Supporter category or the Defender category. For example, let's say I have this argument.

Premise 1: Texas is always hot
Premise 2: Whenever I am in a hot place, I am sad
Conclusion: Whenever I am in Austin, I am sad

There is a gap in that argument between the terms "Austin" and "Texas". (Just because most of us think of Austin as a place in Texas doesn't mean that the test-makers would agree! There's an Austin, Minnesota after all - which is certainly not always hot.)

Now that we've identified the gap, what would a good Assumption answer choice be? Well, we could have either a Supporter assumption or a Defender assumption! A Supporter assumption is one that links together the incomplete argument. So a good Supporter assumption would simply fill in the gap here by saying something like "Austin is in Texas".

Defender assumptions, on the other hand, eliminate an idea that would undermine the argument. So for my above example, "Austin is not a city located in the Arctic Circle" would function as a Defender assumption. Probably not a realistic answer choice on the LSAT, but it rules out a possibility that would certainly undermine the argument!

So an Assumption stimulus can have sometimes have a Supporter assumption as an answer choice, or a Defender assumption as an answer choice, and either one would be right! That said, certain types of gaps are more naturally filled by Supporter assumptions, while others are more naturally filled by Defender assumptions. For instance, in example about Texas that I just gave, a Supporter assumption would probably be the more likely answer choice. On the other hand, in an argument that relies upon Cause and Effect reasoning, the answer will often be a Defender assumption.

Here, for this television question, the gap is the use of Cause and Effect reasoning. Arguments that rely upon Cause and Effect reasoning are often open to ideas that would undermine the argument, specifically alternate causes. For this question, subpar schooling in the United States would be one such alternate cause of competency in math. Answer Choice (E) effectively rules out this potential alternate cause, and so it "defends" the argument. It, like many correct answers for Assumption questions that use Cause and Effect reasoning, is a Defender assumption.

Here are a couple further explanations from other Instructors on this Forum that explain the concept well:

https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=12041
https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewt ... =12&t=7606

Hope that helps!