Q15 - In a study, parents were asked

[andrea.devas]

Hi,
I had it down to (B) and (C) and ultimately picked (B) because of the word "anti social". I understand why (C) works but I also don't see how (B) explains the statistical relationship between watching violent TV and more prone to be disciplined at school. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Hi,
I had it down to (B) and (C) and ultimately picked (B) because of the word "anti social". I understand why (C) works but I also don't see how (B) explains the statistical relationship between watching violent TV and more prone to be disciplined at school. Thanks!

Hey, there.

The one thing you said that concerned me a bit was "I understand why (C) works". Since this is an EXCEPT question, (C) is the correct answer because it DOESN'T work -- in this case, it DOESN'T explain the statistical relationship.

We need to explain the apparent correlation between kids who
i. watch more violent TV (as rated by their parents)
ii. have more discipline problems

A) explains this by connecting the violence the kids watch to bad behavior -- "expressing boredom in an unacceptable fashion"

B) explains this by connecting watching violent programs with bad behavior --- "regarding antisocial behavior as legitimate"

D) explains this by connecting watching violent programs with bad behavior --- "disrespecting society's prohibitions of violence / disrepecting school disciplinary codes"

E) explains this by connecting NOT being allowed to watch violent programs with NOT being allowed to behave badly -- "careful about other aspects of their children's behavior".

In all four cases, we have to judge whether the phrase I put in quotes is linked by common sense to children being more likely / less likely to be disciplined.

Your hesitation with (B) was the phrase 'antisocial behavior'. If a kid thinks antisocial behavior is legitimate, it's reasonable that he will behave antisocially. Is 'behaving antisocially' related to 'being disciplined'? Yes, the test would argue.

You might be thinking of the word 'antisocial' too strictly in terms of the sense in which we sometimes hear it -- someone who is introverted, shy.

But that's really a distortion of what 'antisocial' means. It really means "against society".

So it's pretty equivalent to the idea of expressing oneself "in an unacceptable fashion" in (A).

(C) is the odd man out because it doesn't offer any link between the violence that kids did/didn't watch and their resulting behavior.

In fact, (C) makes it seem like ALL the kids watched violent TV. (C) is saying that the kids who supposedly weren't watching violent TV really were watching violent shows. It's just that their parents, who are desensitized to violence, rated the shows as less violent than the shows really are.

So (C) would actually remove the existence of a statistical relationship by implying that everyone in this study was really watching violent TV.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions.

[andrea.devas]

Hi,
I miss spoke when I said that C works- meaning that I can see how C can be the EXCEPT answer to this question. I just had a really hard time with seeing how B explaing the statistical relationship due to the use of " anti social"

I took antisocial to be introverted or shy because I couldn't see the connection between shyness and violence. Antisocial in the context of anti society does make (B) a much better answer in terms of explaining the statistical reationship and I see how C is correct answer to this question, so thanks!

[shirando21]

Hi,
I had it down to (B) and (C) and ultimately picked (B) because of the word "anti social". I understand why (C) works but I also don't see how (B) explains the statistical relationship between watching violent TV and more prone to be disciplined at school. Thanks!

Hey, there.

The one thing you said that concerned me a bit was "I understand why (C) works". Since this is an EXCEPT question, (C) is the correct answer because it DOESN'T work -- in this case, it DOESN'T explain the statistical relationship.

We need to explain the apparent correlation between kids who
i. watch more violent TV (as rated by their parents)
ii. have more discipline problems

A) explains this by connecting the violence the kids watch to bad behavior -- "expressing boredom in an unacceptable fashion"

B) explains this by connecting watching violent programs with bad behavior --- "regarding antisocial behavior as legitimate"

D) explains this by connecting watching violent programs with bad behavior --- "disrespecting society's prohibitions of violence / disrepecting school disciplinary codes"

E) explains this by connecting NOT being allowed to watch violent programs with NOT being allowed to behave badly -- "careful about other aspects of their children's behavior".

In all four cases, we have to judge whether the phrase I put in quotes is linked by common sense to children being more likely / less likely to be disciplined.

Your hesitation with (B) was the phrase 'antisocial behavior'. If a kid thinks antisocial behavior is legitimate, it's reasonable that he will behave antisocially. Is 'behaving antisocially' related to 'being disciplined'? Yes, the test would argue.

You might be thinking of the word 'antisocial' too strictly in terms of the sense in which we sometimes hear it -- someone who is introverted, shy.

But that's really a distortion of what 'antisocial' means. It really means "against society".

So it's pretty equivalent to the idea of expressing oneself "in an unacceptable fashion" in (A).

(C) is the odd man out because it doesn't offer any link between the violence that kids did/didn't watch and their resulting behavior.

In fact, (C) makes it seem like ALL the kids watched violent TV. (C) is saying that the kids who supposedly weren't watching violent TV really were watching violent shows. It's just that their parents, who are desensitized to violence, rated the shows as less violent than the shows really are.

So (C) would actually remove the existence of a statistical relationship by implying that everyone in this study was really watching violent TV.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions.

right, after reviewing again, C is only talking about the parents. We want to discuss children.

[syousif3]

I'm so confused about this. I thought children rated 3 or higher were 50% more likely to have been disciplined.

A) excited by violent actions programs = bored with school work and express that in an unacceptable manner.. how is that being disciplined though?

B) I eliminated easily because those children behave that way infront of their parents, their parents give them a high rate even though they are actually disciplined in school.

c) Well this has nothing to do with children at first I thought because parents became "used" to such programs by wathcing it too much they saw their children's behaviour normal and thats why they gave them a low rate

And I have no say about D nor E, but maybe I'm not understanding this at all because i'm having a hard time seeing the right answer from the wrong ones. I always get this type of question right but this one is just uh I dont know

[shodges]

I know why (C) is the right answer, but could some one explain how (E) does enough to cover the gap? I have a problem when the LSAT uses loose language sometimes and then is very specific other time. Choice (E) would have been a MUCH better answer had they said "parents to be careful about disciplining their children" or something to that effect. Instead, it read "aspects of their children´s behavior." Doesn't that leave us with too much guessing? We basically have to assume these "aspects" relate to being disciplined in school.

[ohthatpatrick]

A common theme with some of the confusion/qualms about this question is that the answers leave some pretty big gaps in terms of connecting what the answer choice says to what we are trying to explain.

Keep in mind that there is variety in LR. Assumption and Inference demand very exact rephrasing of what was discussed in the stimulus.

But ... Strengthen, Weaken, and Explain the Discrepancy often involve much looser language. We have to add some common sense assumptions to get from what the answer choice actually says to what LSAT is implying with it.

===
Here, we want to explain why kids who supposedly watched more violent TV (as rated by their parents) were more likely to be disciplined in school.

We should NOT expect any answer to literally say 'discipline' (even though (D) does). We have to look for buzzwords/phrases that we can connect to the idea of kids misbehaving (since we tend to assume that kids only get disciplined if they misbehave).

(A) tells us that the kids who watch more violent TV express their boredom in an unacceptable fashion. If a kid expresses himself in school in an unacceptable fashion, it is reasonable to think the kid might get disciplined. After all, you get disciplined for misbehaving. Unacceptable is misbehaving.

(B) tells us that these same kids are more likely to think that antisocial behavior is legitimate. It is reasonable to think that a kid who thinks behaving antisocially is okay will be more likely to behave antisocially. Behaving antisocially is misbehaving.

(C) makes the original data seem very muddy and untrustworthy. We have parents who ranked their kids' tv shows as violent (3 or above) ... and now (C) tells us that the kids whose tv shows were NOT ranked as violent really WERE watching violent tv; it's just that their parents were too desensitized to rank the tv as a 3 or above. So (C) leaves us with a picture of ALL the children watching violent tv. Does that explain why only SOME of them acted out at school? No.

Put another way, (C) tells us that parents who were desensitized to violence had kids who did NOT get disciplined. Parents who were still sensitive enough to violence to rank the TV shows as 3 or above had kids who DID get disciplined.

Does that distinction help explain why some kids got disciplined? Is there any common sense link between "your parents are sensitive enough to violence that they rank your TV shows as violent" and "acting out and getting disciplined at school"? Doesn't seem to be. That's why (C) fails to explain anything.

(D) This has the most direct language ... the kids who watched the violent TV were more likely to disrespect the school code. "Disrespecting the school disciplinary codes" is misbehaving.

(E) This definitely is the loosest connection, but it gives us SOMETHING to work with, whereas (C) gives us almost nothing.

With (E) we know that the kids who don't watch as much violence have parents that are careful about other aspects of their behavior. That is insanely vague ... I'm sure we can think of aspects of behavior that would relate to whether your kid acts out in school as well of aspects of behavior that don't have anything to do with that.

But that's life in the LSAT world.

We gotta choose between (C) and (E). Which has a more reasonable common sense bridge to whether or not your kid acts out in school?

(E) "Carefully managing aspects of your child's behavior"
or
(C) "Being desensitized to violence"?

That is the choice the test is offering us.

I think that (E) is better supported by common sense, and obviously so does LSAT. But, I agree, the vagueness is frustrating.

Just remember, 'barely helping' to explain is still 'helping to explain'. :p

[caoyuan0820]

I think E perfectly explains the relationship here:
Needless to say, when parents dont allow their children to watch programs with high level of violence, these children are those that don't watch such programs. Meanwhile they are more carefully watched by their parents so that they are less likely to misbehave, and are less likely to be disciplined.

I'm confused by B.I can only generalize it as there is a condition which makes children who watch programs with violence regard antisocial behavior as legitimate so that they might misbehave wihout realizing their faults and thus be disciplined...any better explanation,please?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm confused by B.I can only generalize it as there is a condition which makes children who watch programs with violence regard antisocial behavior as legitimate so that they might misbehave wihout realizing their faults and thus be disciplined...any better explanation,please?

I think you have it. If these children are watching violent television with their parents, and thereby regarding antisocial behavior as legitimate, that could explain why children who are watching violent television are also more likely to be disciplined at school for violent behavior--they just don't know any better.

[wgutx08]

I picked C because it is only about the parents and thus clearly irrelevant; but I felt very tempted by B.

B says" when parents watch violent programs with their children together"... I can find nowhere in the stimulus support for this condition. For B to work, we would have to assume that parents did watch TV with the kids together. But wouldn't this kind of additional assumption disqualify many answer choices in other questions?

If C is not among the choices, would B be the LEAST helpful answer for to explain the paradox?


Thanks so much!!!

[LeonC641]

Hi,
This very pattern of Explain Question is so odd for me. When approaching the stimuli, I tried to look for an unexpected-moment but then was completely thrown-off. It seemed very reasonable to say when a kid watched more violence then that kid will be disciplined more.

My lesson was that, in Explain Except question, you sometimes just need to find the AC which cannot link the premise and conclusion, even though the argument itself seems really fine.