Jane: According to an article in this newsmagazine, children’s hand-ey

Alan weakened the conclusion not destroyed it. Notice how he goes from saying "..affected in that way.." to "we need not restrict their television viewing."
There is a big gap in the argument. Television viewing "doesn't affected in that way" but it still can in some other way.

IMHO this represents an " Inappropriate Appeal "

Is the article, well-written, does it have scientific validity ? Has it been discussed in the scientific community ? We are not sure about that....Even Alan doesn't object to that !!! What if the article has been written by some one who has not validity of the claim ?

Alan doen't question the authority of the article, authors knowledege , authenticity etc... and accepts the validity of the argument,hence correct Answer must be (B)

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. - WRONG. Altogether wrong. Relying is necessary.

(B) It confuses undermining an argument in support of a given conclusion with showing that the conclusion itself is false. - CORRECT. Takes the argument as it is but nit picks and brings forth an issue that may not be at all.

(C) It does not address the main point of Jane’s argument and focuses instead on a side issue. - WRONG. The issue remains same.

(D) It makes an irrelevant appeal to an authority. - WRONG. There is no appeal as such.

(E) It fails to distinguish the consequences of a certain practice from the causes of the practice. - WRONG. Distinguishing is irrelevant as it does not affect the conclusion of Jane.

Answer B.

GMATNinja , KarishmaB - Can you explain what does statement B means?

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)