Current motion pictures give children a distorted view of the world.

Official Explanation

The author’s point depends on the assumption that children see both animated features and “spaghetti Westerns.” Obviously, if that assumption is untrue, he cannot claim that his conclusion follows. It may be true that children get a distorted picture of the world from other causes, but the author has not claimed that. He claims only that it comes from their seeing animated features and “spaghetti Westerns.” Presumably, the two different treatments cause the inversion of values. The intention of the producers in making the films is irrelevant since an action may have an effect not intended by the actor.

Hence, (B) would not touch the author’s point. Further, that there are other sources of information that present a proper view of the world does not prove that the problem cited by the author does not produce an inverted view of the world. So (C) would not weaken his point.

(D) reminds us of the importance of careful reading. You might want to interpret (D) to say the same thing as (A), but then you’d have to choose (A) because it makes the telling point more forcefully and directly.

Finally, (E) is irrelevant to the author’s conclusion: children learn to value animals more than people. Of course, as an exercise in debate, you might argue that this is a good thing, but that is not what (E) says.

The correct answer is (A).