Q4 - Child psychologist: Some studies

[jamiejames]

I chose B to begin with, but then changed to D because I didn't know how "older children" were relevant to a stimulus containing information about young children. Could someone explain why B is correct and D is incorrect? thank you!

[timmydoeslsat]

I, too, was skeptical of D with it stating older children. However, what is important to note is that we are really dealing with a correlation-cause stimulus.

We have a strengthen EXCEPT question stem. To strengthen the causal claim, we can do many things, such as:

- Show that the effect occurs with the presumed cause.

- Show that when the presumed cause is absent, the presumed effect is absent.

- Eliminate other possible causes

These would all strengthen our causal claim that the violent video games cause the behavior to be viewed as acceptable among young kids.

Answer choices:

A) Shows the presumed cause with the presumed effect. Really strengthens the correlation cited in the stimulus.

B) Young children who have not played video games with violent content believe that violent behavior is acceptable. This weakens our causal claim. This is showing the effect without the presumed cause.

C) No effect present with the presumed cause being absent. This strengthens.

D) This involves older children, but still shows that violent behavior is viewed as more acceptable after the violent video games than before. This shows the presumed cause with the presumed effect.

E) Strengthens the causal claim. It shows that young children tend to behave more aggressively after being told that aggressive behavior is acceptable.

This answer choice is really strengthening the correlation by showing that the presumed effect is happening after the presumed cause, which is necessary for a cause-effect relationship.

[jamiejames]

I understand the explanations you provided, thank you. However, I still have a question and it pertains to how to tackle these questions in the future. If there's a stated cause and effect, and an answer choices uses that same cause and effect, but with a different group, is that still an answer choice to keep around, such as the shift from examining younger children to older children?

Thank you

[js_martin01]

I fully agree answer choice (B) is the correct answer, but I have a bone to pick with answer (E).

The question's conclusion explicitly states that it is the process of playing violent video games that leads children to normalize the belief that aggressive behaviour is acceptable.

Answer choice (E) is weak for two reasons, in my opinion, and thus does not strengthen the author's conclusion. The answer choice tries to show that "Young children tend to behave more aggressively immediately after being told that aggressive behaviour is acceptable than they did beforehand", yet it fails to specify whether this is so after playing video games, which is what the author is trying to prove. It would seem like a pretty substantial leap to assume that this is a broad, all-encompassing claim that holds true for everything violence-related.

Furthermore, are we to assume that the young children playing these violent video games are "told" that violent behaviour is acceptable, as the question asserts? I feel quite certain in saying that the stimulus would have us believe that it is the act of playing the violent video games that leads to this behaviour, not simply being told.

Is this simply a statement that lends further credibility to the correlation between exposure to violence and subsequent shift in belief, even though it is not linked to the studies mentioned in the stimulus?

I would appreciate some insight from an MLSAT instructor on this one.

[hychu3]

Hi,

Let me explain (E). To be honest I had trouble eliminating this one, so I only hesitantly chose (B), which by the way is closer to being a weakener than a strengthener. After reviewing this problem, though, (E) is clearly a strengthener because it partially fills a logical gap in the stimulus.

In the stimulus, the child psychologist observes that, after playing video games, children behave more aggresively. From this, she concludes that these children believe that aggresive behavior is acceptable.

Thus, the psychologist is assuming that children's believing that aggressive behavior is acceptable leads them to behave more aggressively.

Although not perfect, (E) partially fills this gap: When children are told that aggressive behavior is acceptable (so presumably some of them do believe what they are told), they tend to behave more aggressively. True, being told something and believing that something are not exactly the same, but arguably the logical gap is now smaller.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

(A) This strengthens the argument by strengthening the correlation between playing video games and accepting aggressive behaviour
(B) This doesn't strengthen, in fact it weakens the argument by showing the absence of presumed cause (playing video games) with the presumed effect (believing that aggressive behaviour is acceptable).
(C) Strengthens the argument by negating an alternative hypothesis for the observed phenomenon. In other words it eliminates the possibility that nonviolent video games can children to believe that aggressive behaviour is acceptable.
(D) Although this talks about a different demographic, this slightly strengthens the argument by strengthening the correlation between playing violent video games and believing that violent behaviour is acceptable. If this is the case among older children then perhaps it is also the case among younger children.
(E) While the scope of this answer choice is broader than that of the argument, this strengthens it by strengthening the correlation between acting aggressively and believing that such behaviour is acceptable. The author implies in the conclusion that playing video games makes children believe that aggressive behaviour is acceptable and thereby are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviour