- We have reason to think that violent depictions on TV and movies cause violent behavior in teens
→
Depictions of violence among teenagers should be prohibited from TV and movies if only in programs promoted to young audiences
There are a few gaps in this reasoning. One that might have jumped out is this idea of what we "should" do. Jane is saying we should prohibit violence among teenagers in these movies and television programs. Why? Because these violent depictions may lead to actual violence. This is definitely a gap but it is something that the LSAT is unlikely to test (In my opinion) here because there is also something more troubling about this argument: Jane included that idea that we should do this "if only in those programs and movies promoted to young audiences." Why should we do this for the programs/movies promoted to young audiences? Do those make a significant impact? Maybe the movies promoted to young audiences aren't actually watched by young audiences. Maybe the violence that people actually commit originates more from watching movies that aren't directed at them.
I've noticed this a lot on LSAT arguments. The conclusion add this little addendum, this tiny asterisk, to the end of the conclusion and test you on its flaw - probably while you are too busy focusing on the meat of the conclusion and finding the flaw in that. Whenever I see these little end statements to conclusions, I take special note of them because they often will creep up unsuspected and will actually be the most significant part of the argument.
(A) Who cares who the most violent characters are depicted by? What does this have to do with anything.
(B) This looks really good and focuses upon what I thought the test would ask about. This helps validate Jane's reasoning by saying that the movies specifically promoted to young audiences ARE in fact very influential. They are the MOST influential apparently. Thus, we have good reason to think that these movies should be a main focus.
(C) This is just about promotion and who makes profits. This doesn't matter at all.
(D) Ooh this looks good too! But wait! This actually weakens! This is more or less implying that we don't need to direct our focus to the programs and movies. Why? Because the people that commit violence did so before being exposed to violence in movies. Thus, this actually breaks down the causal relationship between "violence" and "programming" while the right answer - seemingly (B) - attempts to establish that causal relationship.
(B) is the right answer, but I have two questions regarding this question...
- (1) What does that sentence in the conclusion actually mean? Is it saying (promoted to young audiences → depictions of violence should be prohibited) or (depictions of violence should be prohibited → promoted to young audiences). In other words, what is the deal with "if only"? I can see reason to believe in both sides of the arrow but I think that Jane is saying something more akin to "we should prohibit violent depictions in movies, or AT LEAST IN those directed at young audiences." I don't think she is saying that we should ONLY prohibit violent depictions in movies, thus making me lean towards believing the "if only" to introduce the sufficient condition. I don't know though - thoughts?
(2) Would (E) be considered more of a weakener or an out of scope answer? On one hand, it seems to weaken because it implies that producers are already restricting subject matter (violence) in their films! Thus, there may not be a need to do anything about the programming - perhaps ultimately weakening the argument. However, we also don't know what such "restrictions" of subject matter are. Maybe these restrictions mean that they will ONLY show violence among teenagers, NOT adults. The answer is definitely wrong but I am just hoping to develop my general senses so I can apply this understanding to more questions.
