A group of children of various ages was read stories in which people caused harm, some of those people doing...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

A group of children of various ages was read stories in which people caused harm, some of those people doing so intentionally, and some accidentally. When asked about appropriate punishments for those who had caused harm, the younger children, unlike the older ones, assigned punishments that did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally. Younger children, then, do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

In interpreting these stories, the listeners had to draw on a relatively mature sense of human psychology in order to tell whether harm was produced intentionally or accidentally.

In these stories, the severity of the harm produced was clearly stated.

Younger children are as likely to produce harm unintentionally as are older children.

The older children assigned punishment in a way that closely resembled the way adults had assigned punishment in a similar experiment.

The younger children assigned punishments that varied according to the severity of the harm done by the agents in the stories.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
A group of children of various ages was read stories in which people caused harm, some of those people doing so intentionally, and some accidentally.	What it says: Kids heard stories about people hurting others - some on purpose, some by accident What it does: Sets up the experiment conditions with different types of harm scenarios What it is: Study setup/experimental design Visualization: Stories: 50% intentional harm + 50% accidental harm → Children of different ages
When asked about appropriate punishments for those who had caused harm, the younger children, unlike the older ones, assigned punishments that did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally.	What it says: Younger kids gave same punishments regardless of intent, but older kids gave different punishments based on intent What it does: Presents the key finding that shows a clear difference between age groups What it is: Study results/experimental findings Visualization: Younger kids: Intentional harm = 5 years jail, Accidental harm = 5 years jail Older kids: Intentional harm = 8 years jail, Accidental harm = 2 years jail
Younger children, then, do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment.	What it says: Young kids don't think intentions matter when deciding punishment What it does: Draws a broad conclusion from the study results about how young children think What it is: Author's conclusion

Argument Flow:

We start with the experimental setup where kids heard stories about intentional and accidental harm. Then we get the key finding that younger kids punished both types of harm the same way while older kids didn't. Finally, the author concludes that this means younger children don't consider intentions when thinking about punishment.

Main Conclusion:

Younger children do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment

Logical Structure:

The argument uses evidence from one specific study (equal punishment regardless of intent) to make a sweeping claim about how younger children generally think about intentions and punishment. The logic assumes that punishment assignment directly reflects whether kids think intentions matter.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that younger children don't regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment

Precision of Claims

The conclusion makes a broad claim about younger children's cognitive abilities regarding intentions and punishment based on their responses in one specific experimental setting

Strategy

To weaken this conclusion, we need to find alternative explanations for why younger children assigned the same punishments regardless of intent. The key is to show that equal punishment assignment doesn't necessarily mean they don't understand or consider intentions - there could be other reasons for their behavior

Answer Choices Explained

In interpreting these stories, the listeners had to draw on a relatively mature sense of human psychology in order to tell whether harm was produced intentionally or accidentally.

This provides a strong alternative explanation for the experimental results. If determining whether harm was intentional or accidental requires mature psychological understanding, then younger children might not have been able to distinguish between the two types of harm in the stories. This means their equal punishment assignment could be due to their inability to recognize the difference, not because they don't think intentions matter for punishment. This directly undermines the author's conclusion by showing that the evidence doesn't necessarily support the claim.

In these stories, the severity of the harm produced was clearly stated.

Knowing that the severity of harm was clearly stated doesn't weaken the conclusion about intentions. The argument isn't about whether children understand harm severity - it's specifically about whether they consider intentions when assigning punishment. This information is irrelevant to the conclusion and doesn't provide an alternative explanation for why younger children assigned equal punishments regardless of intent.

Younger children are as likely to produce harm unintentionally as are older children.

Information about younger children's likelihood to cause unintentional harm doesn't affect the conclusion about how they view intentions in punishment decisions. Whether they personally cause harm accidentally has no bearing on their cognitive understanding of intentions when judging others' actions. This is completely unrelated to the experimental findings about punishment assignment.

The older children assigned punishment in a way that closely resembled the way adults had assigned punishment in a similar experiment.

This actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If older children punished similarly to adults, it suggests their differentiation based on intent reflects mature moral reasoning. This supports the implication that younger children lack this mature understanding, reinforcing rather than challenging the author's conclusion about younger children not considering intentions.

The younger children assigned punishments that varied according to the severity of the harm done by the agents in the stories.

This information is irrelevant to the conclusion about intentions. The fact that younger children varied punishments based on harm severity shows they can make distinctions when assigning punishment, but it doesn't address whether they consider intentions. The conclusion specifically claims they don't regard intentions as relevant, and this choice doesn't challenge that specific claim.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...