Researchers randomly assigned male juvenile offenders to conditions where they watched either violent or nonviolent films. they discovered that those in the violent film group were less likely to go for when they witnessed a later real-life violent episode than those in the nonviolent film group. on that basis, the researchers concluded that violent films harden all film-goers to real-life aggression. what problem, if any, is there with the researchers' conclusion

This can be characterized by a invalid deductive argument.

Explanation:

There is a problem in this conclusion because the argument to sustain it is not strong enough. You could not conclude that violent movies are responsable for agression, or that the push people into them only because someone does or does not ask for help when seeing it in real life.

An argument is less valid when the conslusions drawn do not have enough premises to sustain it. In this case deducing or making a generalization of the effects of violent movies are not valid. For instance people do not react to real life aggression for more than one reason, sometimes people freeze and cannot react properly, or defend themselves from not interfering in the situation.

it is loom ps i took the test

the economic difference between the three colonial regions. shipbuilding, whaling, fishing, and trapping where also main factors to the economy. the southern regional colonies economy was based on sugarcane, rice, cotton, tobacco, and indigo.