Misbehavior

[4meonly]

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?

The cited studies were conducted by academic researchers adhering to established standards of scientific research.
Students who have been punished by not having playtime outdoors are less likely to misbehave again in the future.
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.
The principal’s suggested policy will not be protested vehemently by local parents who want their children to play outdoors.
Playtime outdoors has not been demonstrated to have positive effects on the physical development of schoolchildren.

[bmlaud]

IMO E -- Defender Assumption

[jeevan.Gk]

Well .. Good question.

I would go for C .

Keeping the conclusion in mind. Only C helps the argument to stand well.

[4meonly]

jeevan.Gk, well done! OA is C

The correct answer choice eliminates an ALTERNATE MODEL OF CAUSATION.

The argument concludes that the principal’s plan to restrict playtime outdoors as a punishment for misbehavior is counterproductive in that outdoor playtime discourages misbehavior. However, this argument assumes that the correlation between outdoor playtime and good behavior is the result of a particular cause and effect relationship – that is, outdoor play causes good behavior. It is possible that good behavior spurs outdoor play rather than vice versa; it is also possible that some other factor causes both good behavior and outdoor play. The correct answer will eliminate one or both of these possibilities.

(A) It is not assumed by the argument that the cited studies were conducted by academic researchers adhering to established standards of scientific research, as studies performed by other parties (i.e. consultants hired by a non-profit organization) could be equally well-constructed and valid.

(B) It is not assumed by the argument that students who have been punished will be less likely to misbehave again in the future. It is possible that the punishment is meant primarily as a deterrent. Also, the argument centers on the plan being counterproductive to the goal of reducing misbehavior; this assumption would make the principal’s plan more effective.

(C) CORRECT. If students who are well-behaved are more likely to play outdoors as a result of being well-behaved, then the cause and effect relationship runs counter to the way it is presented in the argument. If being well-behaved causes children to play outside more, then the principal’s plan would not be counterproductive. The punishment (no outdoor play) would not necessarily cause more bad behavior. It should be noted that one could still question the efficacy of the principal’s plan on other grounds, but this assumption is essential to the argument that the plan is clearly counter to the principal’s goals.

(D) This answer choice is not assumed by the argument. First, there is no indication that the principal will necessarily accede to the wishes of the local parents. Second, the argument concludes that the principal’s plan runs counter to the principal’s goals, not that implementing the plan will be unfeasible.

(E) This answer choice is incorrect in that physical development is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument focuses on behavior, not physical development.

[mason77]

Option C is the best