PT12 S4 Q19 LR problem Forum

[Samara]

I need some help with PT12 S4 Q19.

This is one of those "errors in reasoning" questions. I managed to guess the right answer (after a lot of hemming and hawing) by eliminating a couple choices and recognizing that the correct answer was referring to argument elements that existed in the passage. However, this is a last-resort strategy as I should always be finding the error in reasoning and sometimes wrong answers still correctly refer to elements of the passage. On this question though, I simply cannot understand the error in the reasoning; the respondent's argument seems solid to me.

This is a question about children watching television and hand-eye coordination. The correct answer is (B) "It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false."

Can anyone explain the error in reasoning? (I don't know if I'm allowed to post the passage, so I'm hoping somebody has this test that can help.)

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

You shouldn't post the passage. Here's a discussion. Tell me if that doesn't help.

[Samara]

Hmmm...so is the problem that the respondent used his argument to come to the opposite conclusion? If he would have just stopped at discrediting the applicability of the study and not concluded against restricting television viewing, would there be no error in reasoning? Why can't he make that conclusion then? Maybe I'm reading too far into the question, but it seems that the status quo is not restricting viewing and thus discrediting an argument against changing the status quo is sufficient to uphold the status quo.

I've done several tests and for some reason, this is the only question I've come across where I don't get what the problem is. Are there other questions like this one and this one just isn't clicking with me for some reason? Or is this a rare type of question?

Thanks for your help!

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Alan can say that Jane can't conclude we should restrict the TV time, but he can't say we shouldn't. Perhaps there's another reason.

Analogously:

J: We should let immigrants from LSATdolvia in because I've heard they provide a lot of labor for the US.
A: But that's only true for countries where people use common sense, so we should keep those freaks out.

A could have said something like "we shouldn't necessarily let them in" but it's too strong to claim the opposite position just because you've shown someone's reasoning is screwed up.

[Samara]

Okay, I think I see it pretty clearly now. I don't know why that one was so opaque for me. I hope I don't run into more mysteriously opaque questions.