Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome as are adolescents who do not play video games. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.
The doctor’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
a) The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.
b) Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
c) Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
d) Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
e) The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye
coordination and improved reaction time.
Argument 1 - Playing Video Game ---> more likely to result in CT syndrome.
Argument 2 - Not playing Video Game ---> Will reduce the chance of CT Syndrome
Any bill that prohibits the sale of such video games will help the Argument 2. Whether the bill gets passed or not (meaning whether the legislators vote for it or not) has no bearing on the relationship laid out in Arguments 1 and 2. Hence A is irrelevant.
Choice A classically tricks us out of scope by taking us further than we need to go. We must stay within the argument - which is that yes the legislation would help owing to the relationships explained in the argument. Whether the legislation will be passed or not is irrelevant to the argument.