Critical Reasoning

In an attempt to reduce misbehavior, the junior high school principal has decided to make punishments stricter, including prohibiting unruly students from having playtime outdoors. However, this action is clearly counter to the principal's goals, as studies have shown that students who frequently play outdoors are also less likely to misbehave.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A.The cited studies were conducted by academic researchers adhering to established standards of scientific research.
B.Students who have been punished by not having playtime outdoors are less likely to misbehave again in the future.
C.Well-behaved students do not share a particular trait, such as a desire to socialize with other well-behaved students, that leads them to play outdoors more frequently.
D.The principal's suggested policy will not be protested vehemently by local parents who want their children to play outdoors.
E.Playtime outdoors has not been demonstrated to have positive effects on the physical development of schoolchildren.

This problem addresses a common critical reasoning error type of causation. The argument concludes that prohibiting unruly students from playing outdoors will not reduce their likelihood of misbehavior, and is therefore counter to the principal's goal. The supporting evidence is that studies have shown that students who frequently play outdoors misbehave less frequently.

On assumption questions it is best to go to the answer choices and use what veritas calls the "assumption negation technique." The correct answer will, when negated and inserted back into the argument as another premise, make the argument ridiculous. Answer choice C does this. If we negate it, and insert it back into the argument, the argument reads:

- studies have shown that students who play outside misbehave less
- well-behaved students DO share a particular trait that leads them to play outdoors more frequently
- Therefore punishing misbehaving students by not allowing them to play outdoors will backfire.

We can see that the assumption that is being made is that playing outdoors is causally related to misbehavior and reduces it. However, it could be correlated with students who already behave well, and therefore reducing outdoor playtime for misbehaving students could actually reduce their misbehavior.

Answer choice A is out of scope, because the studies could not be conducted by academic researchers...but still be sound.
Answer choice B is opposite what we want, it weakens the argument.
Answer choice D is out of scope...parents' reaction does not matter
Answer choice E is also out of scope...we are discussing misbehavior, not physical development or any other health benefits. Don't incorporate outside knowledge or opinions into critical reasoning questions.

I hope this helps!

The way I've been trained to break down assumption questions really helps. With each option, you ask yourself, "if I were to take the opposite, would the argument collapse?".

Opposite of option C Well-behaved students share a particular trait, such as a desire to socialize with other well-behaved students, that leads them to play outdoors more frequently.

Notice how I removed the "do not"? The opposite of C would blow away the argument against the principal if children who play outdoors are better behaved to begin with.