Bunuel wrote:
Child psychologist: Some studies in which children have been observed before and after playing video games with violent content have shown that young children tend to behave more aggressively immediately after playing the games. This suggests that the violence in such video games leads young children to believe that aggressive behavior is acceptable.
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the child psychologist’s argument EXCEPT:
(A) Young children tend to be more accepting of aggressive behavior in others immediately after playing video games with violent content.
(B) Many young children who have never played video games with violent content believe that aggressive behavior is acceptable.
(C) Other studies have shown no increase in aggressive behavior in young children who have just played nonviolent video games.
(D) Older children are less likely before playing video games with violent content than they are afterwards to believe that aggressive behavior is acceptable.
(E) Young children tend to behave more aggressively immediately after being told that aggressive behavior is acceptable than they did beforehand.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
Correlation-equals-causation flaw. I could weaken this argument by saying, “Kids eat a lot of Pop Rocks while playing video games, so it’s the
sugar that’s actually causing them to be aggressive, not the video games themselves.” Or, “Kids get wigged out by all the flashing lights and electronic noise of video games, whether or not they are violent, and that’s what causes the aggression.” I could also say, “Kids don’t think aggressive behavior is acceptable at all: they do it on purpose in order to get attention from their parents.” Any of these would interfere with the purported cause, “Violent video games cause kids to think aggressive behavior is acceptable,” and the purported effect, “aggressive behavior immediately after playing video games.”
It’s a “strengthen… EXCEPT” question, so there are four strengtheners here and one non-strengthener. The correct answer could be a weakener, or something that’s just plain irrelevant.
A) This would strengthen the idea that kids find aggressive behavior “more acceptable” after playing video games. So it’s not our answer.
B) This is fairly irrelevant, so it’s probably our answer. Kids who
don’t play video games? The issue is, “Does playing violent games cause kids to behave aggressively.” I don’t see how kids who don’t play games matter much in answering that question. Furthermore, even if it
were relevant, this could only
weaken the argument, because it shows that aggressive behavior can happen without video games. If C through E strengthen the argument, B will be our answer.
C) This would strengthen the argument because it would provide a control group. Kids who play games, but not violent ones, might have the same amount of sugar or electronic stimulation as the kids who played violent games. If they have no increase in aggressive behavior, that strengthens the idea that violent games cause aggressive behavior.
D) Sure, if older children are also susceptible to the effect, then it strengthens the idea that younger children would also be susceptible to the effect. This isn’t a terrific strengthener, but it’s much better than B, which actually weakens.
E) Sure, this strengthens the idea that kids actually think the behavior is acceptable, and that’s why they’re doing it.
Our answer is B, because it’s a weakener and all the other answers are strengtheners.