PT 23 Sec. 2 #18

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

PT 23 Sec. 2 #18

Postby Ragged » Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:18 pm

Nowhere in the stimulas does it mention "violence on television". All the answer choices involving "violence on television" (A,B,C did seem a bit much) seemed out of scope to me. That usually doesn't happen in LR questions.

icobes
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: PT 23 Sec. 2 #18

Postby icobes » Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:58 pm

It is not outside the scope because it is a strengthen question - so none of the answers have to be mentioned in the stimulus. Instead, we are taking outside information and using it to bolster the author's argument.

In the case of this question, the columnist states that there is a relationship between television adoption and violence. He then further states that television causes increased homicide. To infer a cause/effect relationship from a correlation, the author must show that the effect is not actually the cause (as b does) or show that there is no common cause factor (i.e. something that is contributing to both the cause and effect simultaneously).




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearedman8, Bing [Bot], BOSStongrl, SunDevil14, tuesdayninja and 13 guests