PrepTest 156, Section 2, Question 6
Some psychologists claim that empathic responses are forms(105 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(14 more words not shown)
- AThe children studied(24 more words not shown)
- BAdults who respond(23 more words not shown)
- CThe children studied(29 more words not shown)
- DIn actual situations(31 more words not shown)
- ESome adults who(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the children understand more than they can explain.
The two groups disagree about what counts as moral behavior. The first treats children's compassionate responses as evidence of morality. The second says compassion alone isn't enough: children must understand moral principles and have a certain level of moral reasoning skill. We might question what an outward action tells us. A child could offer help partly because another child's crying is unpleasant. On the other hand, spontaneous compassion might count as moral even if the child never explicitly thinks, 'I should do the moral thing.'
Those reactions show why the definition matters. But the question asks us to challenge the second group's conclusion, so let's examine its evidence.
Look at how the second group tests the children. It asks them to give verbal responses to hypothetical dilemmas, then concludes from their unsophisticated answers that they lack the required reasoning skill. Does that test reveal all the reasoning they're capable of? A child might think a situation through without yet having the words to explain that thinking.
What we’re looking for
That's where I'd look for a weakener. Show that poor performance on these hypothetical questions doesn't establish that children lack moral reasoning. We can challenge the measurement without resolving the larger disagreement about what morality requires.
Working the answers
- A
'Slightly higher' doesn't tell us that the rested children have the level of reasoning the psychologists require. Imagine, just to illustrate the gap, that the required level is 50, while the children score 1 when tired and 2 when rested. The improvement would be real, but it wouldn't undermine the conclusion that the children fall short.
- B
Adults doing better than children doesn't show that the children have sufficient moral reasoning skill. If anything, this fits the psychologists' concern about the children's performance. We need a reason to question what the children's results reveal, not another group that performs better.
- C
This gives another small difference within the children's hypothetical responses. Switching the characters from children to adults produces a slightly higher level, but we still don't know that the higher level meets the required standard. The subject of the hypothetical isn't the central issue; what the test establishes about the children's ability is.
- DCorrect
This identifies a different limitation of the test from the difficulty putting thoughts into words: hypothetical situations versus actual ones. The children display much more moral reasoning in actual situations than the tested children display when discussing hypotheticals. That makes the hypothetical test look like a poor basis for the broad conclusion about children's abilities.
Perhaps the difficulty lies in imagining and discussing an abstract situation rather than reasoning about a real one. We don't need to prove that explanation. The demonstrated difference itself gives us reason to doubt that weak hypothetical responses show how little moral reasoning children can do.
- E
Some adults scoring at the same level doesn't tell us whether that level is sufficient. Those adults might also fall below the psychologists' standard. We'd have to add the assumption that these adults possess the required skill before their similar performance helped the children.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.