PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 16
Child psychologist: Psychologists have found that most children(56 more words not shown)
The child psychologist's conclusion follows(9 more words not shown)
- AMost children who(18 more words not shown)
- BChildren who are(21 more words not shown)
- CMost children who(13 more words not shown)
- DMost children are(25 more words not shown)
- EThe only children(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could a young child have a pet with close help from a parent?
The psychologist tells us that most children under six are selfish in their attitudes toward animals and ordinarily haven't begun to understand animals' separate feelings and needs. That's a concern. But it doesn't yet tell us whether they should have pets. Perhaps a child could learn responsibility while a parent closely supervises the care of a goldfish. We aren't assuming that arrangement works; we're asking what rule excludes it.
Also, “most” doesn't mean all. The description allows exceptions, and it doesn't tell us that every older child is considerate toward animals. The conclusion itself is limited to most children, so we don't need to turn the age boundary into an exceptionless rule.
What we’re looking for
To make the conclusion follow, we need a condition for being allowed a pet. The missing idea is that understanding an animal's independent feelings and needs is required. If children lack that understanding, they shouldn't have pets even if someone else could help with the care. That would connect the psychologist's description to the recommendation.
Working the answers
- A
Relying on someone else for care doesn't establish that a child shouldn't have a pet. A parent might appropriately take responsibility while the child participates. We need a rule prohibiting pet ownership under the described circumstances, not another fact about how care gets done.
- B
This permits pets for children who are old enough to have the relevant understanding. It doesn't prohibit pets for children who lack it. Allowing one group doesn't automatically exclude another. The argument needs a reason most younger children should wait, and B leaves their case unsettled.
- C
What children do isn't the same as what they should do. Perhaps most children with these attitudes currently have no pets. That fact wouldn't establish that they ought not to have any. The recommendation still needs support.
- D
This adds a broad description of children's attitudes and understanding. But more description won't supply the missing rule about who should have pets. Even if we accept D, we can still ask whether a child with those limitations should be allowed a pet under supervision.
- ECorrect
Only children with the relevant understanding should have pets. That makes understanding the animal's separate feelings and needs a requirement. The passage tells us children ordinarily begin developing that understanding between six and nine, so most younger children don't yet meet the requirement. E therefore supports the conclusion that most should wait until at least six. Notice that reaching six doesn't itself guarantee readiness; the rule concerns understanding, not a birthday alone.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.