Q16 - Evidently, watching too much television can lead peopl

[Carlystern]

Can someone explain how to arrive at the correct answer for this question?

[ohthatpatrick]

The first key thing with this question is to recognize the correlation-causality pattern.

Conclusion
Watching too much TV can cause people to overestimate the world's risks.

Premise
Ppl who watch an above-avg amount of TV are more likely to think they'll be victims of natural disaster.

When you see LSAT use a correlation (ppl who are X are more likely to be Y) to make a causal conclusion (being X can cause you to be Y), there are a few ways the correct answer choice can come:
- maybe Y is causing them to be X (i.e., which came first?)
- maybe some other factor, Z, is really responsible
- is there more evidence that X and Y do / don't go hand-in-hand

Strengthen answers would suggest #1 or #2 is happening, or they would provide more evidence of X and Y going hand-in-hand.

Weaken answers would suggest that #1 or #2 is NOT happening, or they would provide evidence that X and Y do not always go hand-in-hand.

The correct answer, (E), is giving us #2. It's saying that something else, Z, is also correlated with X.

Ppl who live in areas prone to natural disaster are more likely to watch a lot of TV.
(pair that up with our original correlation)
Ppl who watch a lot of TV are more likely to think the world around them is risky.

From that pair of stats, we would more reasonably conclude that, for these high-TV watching people, the fear of the world around them isn't being caused by watching TV, it's being caused by the genuine elevated risk of the fact that they live in an earthquake / tornado / hurricane type environment.

=== other answers ==

(A) There are two problems with this. #1: the conclusion is only claiming that watching TV can cause people to overestimate risk. This answer choice would only weaken the claim that "ONLY watching too much TV can cause people to overestimate risk". #2: 'Many' is as weak and watered down as 'Some' on Strengthen/Weaken questions. It doesn't have much force behind it. Most Str/Weak questions are concerned with general trends, so the idea that there may be exceptions to a general trend is not interesting or controversial.

(B) This Strengthens for the same reason that (E) weakens. If the people watching a lot of TV do NOT live in risky areas, then this helps the argument (it rules out the possibility of what E is giving us).

C) This Strengthens the argument, in the sense that it shows opposite-Cause (watching BELOW-average TV) goes with opposite-Effect (CORRECTLY estimating risk)

(D) This Strengthens the argument, in the sense that the author thinks that TV is the source of distorted sense of risk ... it somewhat corroborates that story to learn that people who have an accurate sense of risk did NOT get that from watching TV.

Hope this helps.

[pewals13]

Could an instructor delve into the nuances of correlations?

Specifically, A being correlated with B vs B being correlated with A

"if a person lives in an area with natural disasters they are more likely to watch a lot of television"

"if a person watches a lot of television they are more likely to live in area with natural disasters"

The second statement seems stronger than the first

[tommywallach]

Hey Pewals,

They just have different meanings. It's not a question of degree. It's the difference between saying:

Most French people are friendly.

AND

Most friendly people are French.

Totally different meanings.

-t

[AlisaS425]

The first key thing with this question is to recognize the correlation-causality pattern.

Conclusion
Watching too much TV can cause people to overestimate the world's risks.

Premise
Ppl who watch an above-avg amount of TV are more likely to think they'll be victims of natural disaster.

When you see LSAT use a correlation (ppl who are X are more likely to be Y) to make a causal conclusion (being X can cause you to be Y), there are a few ways the correct answer choice can come:
- maybe Y is causing them to be X (i.e., which came first?)
- maybe some other factor, Z, is really responsible
- is there more evidence that X and Y do / don't go hand-in-hand

Strengthen answers would suggest #1 or #2 is happening, or they would provide more evidence of X and Y going hand-in-hand.

Weaken answers would suggest that #1 or #2 is NOT happening, or they would provide evidence that X and Y do not always go hand-in-hand.

The correct answer, (E), is giving us #2. It's saying that something else, Z, is also correlated with X.

Ppl who live in areas prone to natural disaster are more likely to watch a lot of TV.
(pair that up with our original correlation)
Ppl who watch a lot of TV are more likely to think the world around them is risky.

From that pair of stats, we would more reasonably conclude that, for these high-TV watching people, the fear of the world around them isn't being caused by watching TV, it's being caused by the genuine elevated risk of the fact that they live in an earthquake / tornado / hurricane type environment.

=== other answers ==

(A) There are two problems with this. #1: the conclusion is only claiming that watching TV can cause people to overestimate risk. This answer choice would only weaken the claim that "ONLY watching too much TV can cause people to overestimate risk". #2: 'Many' is as weak and watered down as 'Some' on Strengthen/Weaken questions. It doesn't have much force behind it. Most Str/Weak questions are concerned with general trends, so the idea that there may be exceptions to a general trend is not interesting or controversial.

(B) This Strengthens for the same reason that (E) weakens. If the people watching a lot of TV do NOT live in risky areas, then this helps the argument (it rules out the possibility of what E is giving us).

C) This Strengthens the argument, in the sense that it shows opposite-Cause (watching BELOW-average TV) goes with opposite-Effect (CORRECTLY estimating risk)

(D) This Strengthens the argument, in the sense that the author thinks that TV is the source of distorted sense of risk ... it somewhat corroborates that story to learn that people who have an accurate sense of risk did NOT get that from watching TV.

Hope this helps.

Hi Patrick,

Your explanation has always been helpful to me Just want to clarify something about (A) that confuses me. I would like to check if my reasoning is in line with the above highlighted part.

The conclusion seems to suggest that "watching too much TV" is one of the sufficient condition that causes people to overestimate risk.

(A) says that people still overestimate risk (necessary condition achieved) without watching too much TV (without sufficient condition that the author provided). (A) doesn't weaken (or even irrelevant to) the argument because, even if (A) were true, it's still likely that there are other sufficient conditions that cause people to overestimate risk. So, even showing that overestimation of risk occurs (effect/necessary condition occurs) without watching too much TV( without cause/sufficient condition), the author's conclusion still holds, since the author didn't suggest that "watching too much TV" is the ONLY cause that makes people overestimate risk.

Thanks in advance!