Top Law Schools

Hello helpful forum,

PT 47, LR Section 3, Question 15 is really bothering me, although I got it right. I am not sure that b) necessarily helps explain the relationship, since b) is about parents who watch the television programs with their children. The stimulus does not say that the parents watched the programs with their children. The parents could very well have rated the programs by watching them alone, and if this were the case, b) would not be relevant.

Clarification is appreciated!

freddie wrote:Hello helpful forum,

PT 47, LR Section 3, Question 15 is really bothering me, although I got it right. I am not sure that b) necessarily helps explain the relationship, since b) is about parents who watch the television programs with their children. The stimulus does not say that the parents watched the programs with their children. The parents could very well have rated the programs by watching them alone, and if this were the case, b) would not be relevant.

Clarification is appreciated!

You are right that if none of the kids ever watched violent TV with their parents then this answer would be irrelevant, but you are just looking for answers that could help describe the discrepancy. You don't know whether the kids do watch TV with their parents but you don't know that they don't. Sure it isn't a strong explanation for the correlation but it is definitely stronger than answer choice C, which doesn't help explain anything at all.

Maybe the kids don't ever watch TV with their parents, but without knowing that one way or another you can take B as being a possible explanation for the phenomenon, even if it isn't a *sure* explanation for the phenomenon.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for your clear explanation. It makes sense, and will help me in my approach to questions of the same type.

Gracias!