PrepTest 119, Section 3, Question 16
Psychologist: Some people contend that children should never(67 more words not shown)
The view that children should(18 more words not shown)
- Ais designed to(2 more words not shown)
- Bis designed to(3 more words not shown)
- Cis designed to(4 more words not shown)
- Dclaims has a(7 more words not shown)
- Eclaims is less(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Never reprimand a child? That is a strong rule. If a child does something unacceptable and nobody ever corrects it, how does the child learn that the behavior needs to change?
But the opposite rule is strong too: punish children whenever they misbehave. The psychologist sees value in challenging that approach. We don't have to choose between endorsing every punishment and rejecting every reprimand.
Follow the turn at yet. The psychologist first credits the never-reprimand position for challenging automatic punishment, then says its own answer is dangerous. The stated concern is that never reprimanding children effectively rewards unacceptable behavior, which can encourage repetition. That's the reason for rejecting the absolute rule.
What we’re looking for
The question asks how that never-reprimand position functions in the argument. I'd describe it as a view the psychologist criticizes while acknowledging something valuable about it. An answer that includes only the criticism or only the praise will leave out part of that response.
Working the answers
- A
Entirely is too strong. The psychologist does challenge the position, but also calls its challenge to automatic punishment laudable. That acknowledgment matters. Rejecting its answer about how often to punish doesn't require treating every aspect of the position as worthless.
- B
The argument points to a danger in never reprimanding children, so it is not trying to establish that position as true. The praise for one contribution doesn't cancel the criticism of the position's recommendation.
- C
The author acknowledges something positive, but establishing good intentions isn't the point of the argument. More precisely, the explicit praise concerns the view's challenge to another belief, not a factual finding about its supporters' intentions. C also leaves out the serious criticism that follows.
- DCorrect
The serious flaw is that never reprimanding children can encourage unacceptable behavior by effectively rewarding it. The value is the challenge to the belief that children should be punished whenever they misbehave. D preserves both sides of the psychologist's assessment.
We don't need to treat the position as completely right or completely worthless. The author can reject the rule while recognizing a useful contribution it makes to the discussion.
- E
The psychologist doesn't rank the never-reprimand position below every other view mentioned. In particular, the argument doesn't endorse punishment for every misbehavior as the better policy. Criticizing one extreme while crediting its challenge to another does not establish this comparative ranking.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.