LSAT 118 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Bardis: Extensive research shows that television advertisements …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Violent TV doesn’t cause violence.

REASONING: TV ads can affect behavior because they’re designed to influence purchasing decisions. But violent TV content isn’t designed to make viewers become violent.

ANALYSIS: A key thing to notice here, which you might’ve missed, is that Bardis is responding to someone else’s argument.

The other side says: TV ads affect behavior, so TV violence may affect behavior too.

Bardis points out a difference: Ads are specifically designed to influence behavior; violent shows are not.

That’s a pretty reasonable criticism of the analogy. But then Bardis takes an extra step: therefore, violent TV doesn’t cause violence (the conclusion).

That’s where the flaw comes in. Even if the original argument is bad, that doesn’t prove the opposite conclusion. At most, Bardis has shown that the argument for the opposing side is weak because the analogy is flawed. He has not shown that the claim itself is false.

If someone says “Aliens exist because my horoscope predicted it” – that’s a terrible argument. But showing the argument is terrible does not prove aliens don’t exist. Bad argument ≠ false conclusion.

___________

1. Bardis never argues that ads can cause violent behavior.
2. The issue isn’t confusion between a behavior and a stimulus. Bardis clearly distinguishes TV images from violent behavior.
3. He doesn’t undermine his own position. In fact, he accepts that ads can influence behavior. The mistake comes later.
4. CORRECT. Bardis identifies a bad argument, but then concludes that their claim must be false. But attacking an argument for a claim does not establish that the claim is false.
5. There is no indication that the argument Bardis criticizes was intended to address a different issue. The dispute is about the same issue throughout: whether TV violence causes violent behavior.