Columnist's argument: TV shows increases/causes homicide rate to go up.

B is actually a black and white statement that reaffirms the argument by saying that TV is indeed the cause, not the result of the changes in society.

In another words, without reading the answers, one can refute columnist's argument and say that maybe TV is not the reason why the homicide rate is going up, but rather TV is inspired by the community and as a result, begins to air violent shows.

To further demonstrate above point: Imagine a small peaceful town that has friendly neighbors and a local TV station airing family-oriented programming on TV to reflect such community.

Then the town loses its biggest employer, and all of sudden people are forced to steal from the stores and to rob banks. Local TV stations adjusting to the changing time begins to air violent TV shows.

In the above scenario, violent TV shows become the effect/result of the violence in community, and not the cause. By eliminating above scenario, answer B supports/strengthens the columnist's argument.

Also I think you should tell us why you think D is correct in order for us to help address possible flaws in your reasoning.

uwhusky wrote:Also I think you should tell us why you think D is correct in order for us to help address possible flaws in your reasoning.

its lovely when we are both nice to each other...
first of all, thank you for a quick reply and explanation

second, i chose D every time i read this CR because its what i understood from the CR

the columnist assested that the advent of TV helps to explain why the groth in homicide rate increased earlier than the growth in homicide rates in rural areas.
he supported that by saying that TV became popular in urban households about 4 years earlier than in rural household and so was the homicide rates were!

and D supports what the columnist's argument. doesnt D say that the ealier people get familiar with violence on TV, the more effect they get? and the effect mentioned here is not "the increasing in homicide rates".

i also thought of B but i think its just an assumption. ...
how do you eliminate D????

diebeatsthegmat wrote:Columnist: The advent of television helps to explain why the growth in homicide rates in urban areas began significantly earlier than the growth in homicide rates in rural areas. Television sets became popular in urban households about four years earlier than in rural households. Urban homicide rates began increasing in 1958, about four years earlier than a similar increase in rural homicide rates began.
Which one of the following, if true, most support the columnist's argument?
(A) In places where the number of violent television programs is low, the homicide rates are also low.
(B) The portrayal of violence on television is a cause, not an effect of the violence in society.
(C) There were no violent television programs during the early years of television.
(D) The earlier one is exposed to violence on television, the more profound the effect.
(E) Increasing one's amount of leisure time increases one's inclination to act violently.

None of the answer choices is justifiable. The argument above concludes that the advent of TV caused the growth in homicide rates; the argument does not conclude that violence on TV caused the growth in homicide rates. To justify the OA, we would have to know that early TV shows portrayed violence.

Even if the argument had concluded that violence on TV caused the growth in homicide rates, the OA does not reflect how the GMAT typically supports a causal relationship. Usually, the best way to support a causal relationship is to eliminate another possible cause. For example, the correct answer to the argument above might say:

The proportion of people under the age of 30, the age group that commits most homicides, remained stable in both urban and rural areas from 1950 to 1970.

The answer above would show that the growth in homicide rates was not caused by an increase in the proportion of people under the age of 30, strengthening the assumption that it was the violence on TV that caused the growth in homicide rates.

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

uwhusky wrote:Also I think you should tell us why you think D is correct in order for us to help address possible flaws in your reasoning.

its lovely when we are both nice to each other...
first of all, thank you for a quick reply and explanation

second, i chose D every time i read this CR because its what i understood from the CR

the columnist assested that the advent of TV helps to explain why the groth in homicide rate increased earlier than the growth in homicide rates in rural areas.
he supported that by saying that TV became popular in urban households about 4 years earlier than in rural household and so was the homicide rates were!

and D supports what the columnist's argument. doesnt D say that the ealier people get familiar with violence on TV, the more effect they get? and the effect mentioned here is not "the increasing in homicide rates".

i also thought of B but i think its just an assumption. ...
how do you eliminate D????

As was already pointed out you would never see a question like this on the GMAT, but if we assume they are talking about violent TV here is why I believe you rule out D:

In the passage the author states that TV sets became popular in urban areas four years before rural areas. Homicide rates rose in urban and areas and then rose by an equal amount four years later in rural areas.

The important thing to note is the phrase "similar increase". For D to be correct there would have to be a more profound effect in urban areas since those people are being exposed to TV four years before the rural areas. But it does not because the author tells us that the effect is similar despite the rural area citizens receiving TV four years later.

There is also the fact that there is no implication about the age demographic of either location. My reasoning makes the assumption that the demographic is the same, but it might not be.

fitzgerald23 wrote:

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

uwhusky wrote:Also I think you should tell us why you think D is correct in order for us to help address possible flaws in your reasoning.

its lovely when we are both nice to each other...
first of all, thank you for a quick reply and explanation

second, i chose D every time i read this CR because its what i understood from the CR

the columnist assested that the advent of TV helps to explain why the groth in homicide rate increased earlier than the growth in homicide rates in rural areas.
he supported that by saying that TV became popular in urban households about 4 years earlier than in rural household and so was the homicide rates were!

and D supports what the columnist's argument. doesnt D say that the ealier people get familiar with violence on TV, the more effect they get? and the effect mentioned here is not "the increasing in homicide rates".

i also thought of B but i think its just an assumption. ...
how do you eliminate D????

As was already pointed out you would never see a question like this on the GMAT, but if we assume they are talking about violent TV here is why I believe you rule out D:

In the passage the author states that TV sets became popular in urban areas four years before rural areas. Homicide rates rose in urban and areas and then rose by an equal amount four years later in rural areas.

The important thing to note is the phrase "similar increase". For D to be correct there would have to be a more profound effect in urban areas since those people are being exposed to TV four years before the rural areas. But it does not because the author tells us that the effect is similar despite the rural area citizens receiving TV four years later.

There is also the fact that there is no implication about the age demographic of either location. My reasoning makes the assumption that the demographic is the same, but it might not be.

this is also what i am thinking for option D. ( further thoughts). if the argument mentioned the similiar time of increasing in homicide rate and becoming popular of TV, i meamt, for example if the TV became popular in 1950 in urban cities and in 1954 in rural cities, while homicide rates increased in 1958 , about 4 years ealier than the homicide rates in rural cities, things would be so different,
however i also think B is just a assumtion, thus i was like stuck!
thanks