"We don't need researchers to tell us that kids watch too much television"
Deborah Orr: The Independent 24/02/07
Read the article: http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/deborah_orr/article2300417.ece
Questions:
1. Answer the question posed by the author in the first sentence of the article?
2. To what extent should we expect that the quality of the programmes watched would be a factor (paragraph 2)?
3. To what extent is it surprising that 11-15 year olds should spend more time staring at a screen than they do at school?
4. The author says that her children are resistant to the idea of being “hoiked” away from their screens and she sees this as evidence that TV is addictive. Evaluate the author’s reasoning in making this judgement.
5. Evaluate the relevance of the author’s claim that it was possible to organise a social life before the advent of mobile phones.
6. To what extent is the campaign against deregulation of the airwaves (paragraph 6) relevant to the author’s argument?
7. What is the dilemma posed by the author in paragraph 7? How might this dilemma be resolved?
8. What does the Aric Sigman intend us to infer from the experience of the nation of Bhutan (final paragraph)? How might the evidence be interpreted to avoid the inference intended by Sigman?
9. To what extent is Sigman justified in calling for TVs to carry a health warning?
10. What is the conclusion of this argument?
11. To what extent has the author established that “We don’t need researchers to tell us that kids watch too much television"?
Suggested Answers:
1. 1. Answer the question posed by the author in the first sentence of the article?
If there is a link between x and y, does it necessarily prove that x caused y (or that y caused x)? In other words, is there a causal link?
2. To what extent should we expect that the quality of the programmes watched would be a factor (paragraph 2)?
To a certain extent, we might expect that, for example, children with attention deficit disorder would be more likely to watch cartoons than factual documentaries, since the cartoons probably require less concentration and attention. That does not necessarily mean that the television viewing is causing the attention deficit disorder.
3. To what extent is it surprising that 11-15 year olds should spend more time staring at a screen than they do at school?
These days, children do both things at once i.e. they spend a lot of time at school looking at screens e.g. during ICT lessons or looking at interactive whiteboards.
4. The author says that her children are resistant to the idea of being “hoiked” away from their screens and she sees this as evidence that TV is addictive. Evaluate the author’s reasoning in making this judgement.
Students could explore the meaning of the word “addictive”. Does this mean a physical dependency (e.g. as with tobacco or heroin addiction) or does it just mean something that is hard to give up? Deborah Orr is probably reading too much into the response of her children. They may complain but are they actually displaying any physical withdrawal symptoms?
5. Evaluate the relevance of the author’s claim that it was possible to organise a social life before the advent of mobile phones.
This is an appeal to history. It was possible to live without mobile phones but it does not necessarily follow that life was better without mobile phones.
6. To what extent is the campaign against deregulation of the airwaves (paragraph 6) relevant to the author’s argument?
Deregulation of the airwaves led to an increase in the number of channels but that does not necessarily mean that people would watch more television, since children can only watch one channel at a time.
7. What is the dilemma posed by the author in paragraph 7? How might this dilemma be resolved?
Either she allows her children to watch television (putting them at risk of the negative consequences outlines in the first paragraph) or she throws the TV in the bin (and runs the risk of her children begging total strangers to allow them into their homes). This is a restriction of the options, since there are compromise solutions e.g. she could ration her children’s television viewing.
8. What does the Aric Sigman intend us to infer from the experience of the nation of Bhutan (final paragraph)? How might the evidence be interpreted to avoid the inference intended by Sigman?
The intended inference is that the arrival of multi-channel TV caused the crime-wave. It is possible that the crime-wave was caused by other factors.
9. To what extent is Sigman justified in calling for TVs to carry a health warning?
The causal link between tobacco and lung cancer has been proved but the causal link between TV and the negative consequences described in the first paragraph has not been proved. It is possible to watch TV in moderation but less easy to smoke in moderation. Tobacco is physically addictive but TV is not.
10. What is the conclusion of this argument?
The final sentence: “I think we should be listening to him (Aric Sigman) just a bit . . . “
11. To what extent has the author established that “We don’t need researchers to tell us that kids watch too much television”?
The author’s argument leads to the conclusion that Aric Sigman’s warnings are worth listening to, “just a bit”. Most of her argument is intended to support the conclusions of this researcher. The author does draw on her experience with her own children, which she sees as clear evidence that TV is addictive. Nevertheless, she has certainly not established that researchers such as Sigman are not needed.