Passage Summary: Just because ads change how we shop doesn't mean TV violence makes us violent; ads are meant to change us, but TV violence isn't, so it's harmless.

Conclusion: Violent images on television do not actually cause people to act violently.

Reasoning: While advertisements are designed to change behavior, television violence is not intended to cause violence, so it must not have that effect.

Analysis: The author is making a classic mistake by confusing intent with effect. Just because a creator doesn't *intend* for a show to cause a specific behavior doesn't mean the show is incapable of causing it—accidental consequences are still consequences. It's like saying that because I didn't design my umbrella to be a tripping hazard, it's impossible for anyone to ever trip over it. Look for an answer that points out this failure to consider that unintended effects can still occur.