Bunuel
Jane: According to an article in this newsmagazine, children’s hand-eye coordination suffers when they spend a great amount of time watching television. Therefore, we must restrict the amount of time Jacqueline and Mildred are allowed to watch television.
Alan: Rubbish! The article says that only children under three are affected in that way. Jacqueline is ten and Mildred is eight. Therefore, we need not restrict their television viewing.
Alan’s argument against Jane’s conclusion makes which one of the following errors in reasoning?
(A) It relies on the same source that Jane cited in support of her conclusion.
(B) It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false.
(C) It does not address the main point of Jane’s argument and focuses instead on a side issue.
(D) It makes an irrelevant appeal to an authority.
(E) It fails to distinguish the consequences of a certain practice from the causes of the practice.
Jane's Premise (Support for her conclusion): According to an article in this newsmagazine, children’s hand-eye coordination suffers when they spend a great amount of time watching television.
Jane's Conclusion: We must restrict the amount of time Jacqueline and Mildred are allowed to watch television.
Alan's Premises: The article says that only children under three are affected in that way.
Jacqueline is ten and Mildred is eight.
Alan's Conclusion: We need not restrict their television viewing.
Jane wants to say that they should restrict their children's tv watching and provides premises to support that. Alan undermines her premises by providing additional information that it is applicable only for children less than 3 years old and their kids are much older. He then goes on to say that they need not restrict their children's television viewing. Alan provided data to undermine Jane's premise. He did not provide data to undermine Jane's conclusion. He did not give any data on why the kids should be allowed to watch tv - why there should be no restrictions. He did not provide any data to show that Jane's conclusion may be false. Hence based on the data he provided, he cannot conclude that TV viewing should not be restricted. That is the error in Alan's reasoning.
(B) It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false.It confuses undermining an argument (Jan's premise) in support of a given conclusion (Jane' conclusion) with showing that the conclusion itself is false.
Answer (B)