Q4 - Swimming pools should be fenced

[schwingrocker]

I picked C, but was very tempted by B. why is C better than B? What kind of a question is this?

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting. This question is an inference question. You have to infer what the rest of the argument.

One quick nitpicky point: it's dangerous to refer to the right answer as "better" than the wrong one. There should be a concrete reason why each wrong answer is wrong.

So the first example appears to be: it's important to keep the kids away from the dangerous thing but more important to teach them to use it so it won't be dangerous.

Applying that to the foods, we get something like: it's important to keep kids away from unhealthy foods on TV but it's more important to teach them to make good choices (i.e. to use food) so the TV ads won't matter. That's why (C) is such a good match. If the children know how to make good choices, the availability and marketing of candy and soda won't tempt them so they won't be dangerous.

The wrong answers:

(A) is out of scope. Why would encouraging them to watch TV help us?

(B) is very tempting, I agree. But knowing that ads are misleading won't make the unhealthy candy itself any less dangerous. The passage discusses limiting access to the candy/soda, not the ads.

(D) is also tempting, I think. But the analogy to (D) might be learning to hold your breath or learning to call an adult if a kid is in trouble. These are things that help mitigate the risk but don't make the thing itself non-dangerous. Once you know how to swim, a pool stops being dangerous. Once you know exercise is important, that doesn't prevent the danger of candy and soda (think of tooth decay, for example).

(E) is a great hippie parenting choice but isn't very tempting. The analogy would be to avoiding the pool or filling it in.

I hope this helps with the question. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[rinagoldfield]

I solved this problem as part of my Manhattan LSAT instructor training. Here's my take on it.

PT65, S1, Q4 (Principle/ Hybrid)

C is correct.
This question takes a hybrid form that combines elements of principle, matching, and inference questions. Although it may seem daunting at first, this problem becomes more manageable if we approach it step-by-step.

The question stem asks us to complete a sentence about children’s access to soft drinks and candies using a "principle...that applies to childrearing generally." The principle in question needs to be inferred from the first part of the stimulus. This part of the argument states that it is important to protect children from drowning by fencing off swimming pools, but it is even more important to protect children from drowning by teaching them to swim. From this we can infer the principle that it is important to shield children from danger by blocking their access to dangerous situations, but it is more important to teach children the skills to confront danger directly.

Now that we have the principle, how can we complete the passage? The author states that we should restrict children’s access to the candies and soft drinks that they might see on TV. Based on the principle we unearthed, we can guess that the author views these foods as a potential danger to children. We can also predict that the author will want to teach children to confront the dangers of junk food directly. Let’s see if any of the answer choices match this prediction.

(A) suggests that television is a good and accurate source of information. But we know that the author disagrees- he thinks that the foods advertised on TV are dangerous to children. Eliminate this answer choice.

(B) is a very tempting answer choice. In addition restricting children’s access to the junk foods they see advertised on TV, why not teach children the critical skills to understand that TV is misleading? But remember that the author sees candy and soft drinks as dangerous, not TV. Also, the statement that "television advertisements are deceptive and misleading" is too extreme- while the author might agree that some ads are deceptive and misleading, there is no evidence to suggest that he believes all ads are.

(C) doesn’t mention television, candy, or soft drinks. Yet we know that the author probably wants to teach children to avoid the lure of junk food. In other words, he wants to teach them to smartly evaluate the array of foods available to them and make healthy choices. Keep this answer for now.

(D) is also a tempting option. Like answer choice C, D presents a plan to teach children the skills to be healthy. However, the author talks about food in the stimulus, not physical activity or health in general. This answer choice is out of scope.

(E) has nothing to do with food. Again, remember that television is a detail, not a central part of the argument. The fact the children see candies and soft drinks on TV is irrelevant to the central danger of junk food.

That leaves us with (C), the correct answer choice.

[phoebster21]

For B, can you clarify my reasoning please?
In the original example, B would be closer to something like "...should be fenced to protect children from drowning, but teaching children that pools are dangerous and that they can kill you is more important."

Instead, the stimulus suggests teaching children how to swim and not merely just how to recognize the danger of a swimming pool, which is what B is doing by teaching children to recognize the TV ads are deceptive and misleading.

[thoughtyn963]

You have to, by regulation, have a four sided fence round ANY pool that can be packed with more than 30cm of water. This consists of inflatable and transportable swimming .

Data about pool and spa safety which includes fencing, covers. you can reduce the risk of injuries occurring on your swimming pool or spa pool via installing .

[moragi1977j222]

To make in an inactive hindrance to limit the entrance of little kids 0-5 years to the swimming pool.

Swimming pool wall must have a self-shutting and self-hooking entryway to be consistent to most nations laws and codes.

[seetingj357]

Totally right answer, doesn't make reference to TV, treat, or soda pops. However we realize that the creator most likely needs to instruct youngsters to stay away from the bait of low quality nourishment. As it were, he needs to instruct them to astutely assess the variety of nourishments accessible to them and settle on solid decisions. Keep this response for the time being.

[ToliatiB842]

Also the swimming pools must be with the safety alarms. This is for an extra precaution. You can visit site to see what is actually is this and how to install it.

[supakej34]

I think your mean, information about pool and spa protection which includes fencing, covers, other lifeguards like glass. you can reduce the risk of injuries occurring in your swimming pool or spa pool through installing.

[DannyM45]

Thanks for posting. This question is an inference question. You have to infer what the rest of the argument.

One quick nitpicky point: it's dangerous to refer to the right answer as "better" than the wrong one. There should be a concrete reason why each wrong answer is wrong.

So the first example appears to be: it's important to keep the kids away from the dangerous thing but more important to teach them to use it so it won't be dangerous.

Applying that to the foods, we get something like: it's important to keep kids away from unhealthy foods on TV but it's more important to teach them to make good choices (i.e. to use food) so the TV ads won't matter. That's why (C) is such a good match. If the children know how to make good choices, the availability and marketing of candy and soda won't tempt them so they won't be dangerous.

The wrong answers:

(A) is out of scope. Why would encouraging them to watch TV help us?

(B) is very tempting, I agree. But knowing that ads are misleading won't make the unhealthy candy itself any less dangerous. The passage discusses limiting access to the candy/soda, not the ads.

(D) is also tempting, I think. But the analogy to (D) might be learning to hold your breath or learning to call an adult if a kid is in trouble. These are things that help mitigate the risk but don't make the thing itself non-dangerous. Once you know how to swim, a pool stops being dangerous. Once you know exercise is important, that doesn't prevent the danger of candy and soda (think of tooth decay, for example).

(E) is a great hippie parenting choice but isn't very tempting. The analogy would be to avoiding the pool or filling it in.

I hope this helps with the question. Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

Thank you so much for information!)

[JodyB573]

Yes, it is be just perfect