The argument is that children who spend all their spare time playing computer games have less experience in interpersonal communication than other children have.
This is because:
- computer games are a cause of underdeveloped communication skills in children; and
- time spent after school playing games is time spent not talking to people
The argument compares the social skills of children who video game to children who don't. The assumption made in this comparison is that the children who don't video game don't contradict any of the premises set by the author. That is - they spend time talking to people.
A- Don't get tricked (As I almost was) into over-assuming and thinking that 'passive activities' includes computer games. Even if it did, this statement is beside the scope of the argument.
B - This is another tricky answer as people can be conned into thinking that the author has assumed that "other children" have opportunities to be social. B obscures the premise as we are only concerned with kids who play and kids who dont
C - this is the correct assumption.
In order for the author's argument (his comparison) to be airtight, there must be evidence that the two comparison groups pass his tests. That is, that the "other children" actually socialise.
Can try negating this to see if it weakens the conclusion:
Children who
do spend all their after-school hours playing computer games spend at
none of that time talking with other people.
This completely nullifies the basis of the author's comparison.
D - formal instruction is irrelevant to the argument
E- intellectual development is irrelevant. We are dealing with social development.