A group of children of various ages was read stories in which people

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.

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


The option states that to interpret these stories, listeners had to draw on a relatively mature sense of human psychology in order to tell whether harm was produced intentionally or accidentally.Maturity comes with a age and children might not be mature enough to interpret these stories.

This undermines the conclusion because children didn't disregard the intentions in fact they couldn't understand the intentions of people i.e whether ppl did crimes intentionally or accidentally.


press kudos if it helps

Responding to a pm:

Children read stories and assigned punishment.
Younger children did not take intention vs accident into account. Older children did.

Conclusion: Younger children, then, do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment.

We need to weaken the conclusion. Something that tells us that it may not be true that younger children don't regard intention as relevant.

(A) 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.

What does this option tell us? That listeners needed to draw on a mature sense to tell whether harm was done intentionally or accidentally. So it tells us that younger children may not have the maturity that is needed to differentiate whether harm was done intentionally or accidentally. In that case, they could not have taken intention into account even if they did consider it relevant. Hence, the problem may lie in identifying intention. This weakens our conclusion. We cannot necessarily say that younger children don't regard intention as relevant.

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

The question is whether intention is taken into account or not. Severity of harm produced is irrelevant.

(C) Younger children are as likely to produce harm unintentionally as are older children.

Irrelevant. We are only interested in how younger children assigned punishments on hearing the stories.

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

Irrelevant. We are only interested in how younger children assigned punishments on hearing the stories.

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

Our question is whether the younger children took intent into account or not. What else they took into account while assigning punishment is irrelevant.

Answer (A)

Answer must be A.
D and E strengthen the argument.
A presents an alternate reason why the group of children gave random punishments. If it needs a high level of intellect to choose respective punishments, then the children were not capable enough to do so. We can't say that younger children do not regard people's intentions relevant to punishment. In other words A is an alternate cause.
C and B are nor relevant.

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.


I got A by POE

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

we don't know the severity of the harm done we only have 2 options intentionally or accidentally.

Also if you use !A > B
if we negate A we can arrive at B

In interpreting these stories, the listeners had NOT drawn on a relatively mature sense of human psychology in order to tell whether harm was produced intentionally or accidentally

what happens if they are mature then they can use that as a basis for punishment.

Hi,

I got a PM to respond to this question. Please find the response below:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiaYX291uZU[/youtube]

Let me know if it helps.

-Rajat
_________________

I too marked A, But i am unable to rule out E. Can you please explain how you ruled out E?

My reasoning for E is

When the younger children assigned punishments that varied according to the severity of the harm done by the agents in the stories then the Younger children regard people’s intentions as relevant to punishment. so it might weaken the conclusion

Please correct me if i am wrong

There is no relationship between severity of harm and intention. Lets say I hit someone while driving my car at 70 mph. The severity of harm would be the same whether I hit the person intentionally or by accident. Since there is no relationship between severity of harm in intention, this choice is OFS (out of scope)

S
_________________

Hi Marcab,
Can u please elaborate a lil more on A is weakening.What I can make out of it is that A says that since a high level of intellect is needed, younger kids are unable to decide on punishment, hence its supporting the argument! Please guide.

Good Question+1
Gmatprep questions are just awesome...

Clearly this is a Weaken question and the conclusion is that Younger children do not consider intent (whether accidental or intentional) of people while deciding a punishment..and why is that? Because the study showed that Younger people gave same punishment whether person's intent was accidental or intentional..

Gap in Logic : Younger children do not regard intent of the people (In Conclusion) where as facts presented tells about same punishment was given by younger people..irrespective of intent

A gives you the logic that it is not that younger children do not consider intent of the doer but just that they don't have enough knowledge to differentiate between harm produced intentionally or accidentally.. and thus an alternate reason for giving the same punishment..

For a weaken question...always consider the argument to be weak(When you are reading) and before going to answer try come with an answer on your own...Picking the correct answer choice becomes easier thereafter...
_________________

HI GMATNinja, mikemcgarry, DmitryFarber, MagooshExpert (Carolyn), ccooley, GMATGuruNY, EMPOWERgmatVerbal, EducationAisle

I'm unable to comprehend how A weakens the argument. Can you please help me with my reasoning?
_________________

Premise:
Younger children assigned punishments that did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally.
Conclusion:
Younger children do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment.

A: 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.
Implication:
The YOUNGER children assigned unvarying punishments NOT because they considered intention unimportant but because they lacked the MATURITY to discern whether the harm in the stories was produced intentionally -- WEAKENING the conclusion that younger people do not regard intention as relevant.


_________________

The argument is that Young kids don't regard INTENTIONS as relevant to punishment.
This is supported by a study.

We are asked to weaken this claim.

A does this - the conclusion assumes that younger kids have the same maturity as older kids i.e. that there is no other reason for the younger kids to conclude the way they did, so if younger kids actually require a more mature sense of psychology to IDENTIFY INTENTIONS in the first place then we cannot reliably conclude that the regarded INTENTIONS at all.

B - this does not affect the conclusion. It merely tells us the study was undertaken clearly.
C - irrelevant. The argument is about identifying, not producing harm.
D - tells us something about older kids - nothing to do with the argument.
E - lures you by tricking you into thinking that because the kids were able to assign punishments based on severity of harm that they actually had regard. This is false. The argument is concerned with "Regard for INTENTIONS (malicious/ accidental) not regard for severity of harm. The younger kids could have no regard for intentions but regard for severity or both.

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?


(A) 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. CORRECT

The author concludes that YOUNG children specifically do not consider/regard people’s intentions as relevant to the punishment on the basis of an observation that children assign punishments that did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally. This choice tells us that maybe the listeners have it all wrong and that children DO in fact care about intentions, but the issue is that the listeners were unable to detect this because of the method that they were using.

(B) In these stories, the severity of the harm produced was clearly stated. X

OK, but this doesn’t address the extant concerns about intention

(C) Younger children are as likely to produce harm unintentionally as are older children. X

This is a needless comparison

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

We need to keep the attention on younger children!

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

OK great, but what about intentions!!
_________________

the question states the children of various ages "read" the stories but option A says "listeners" does that make any difference? VeritasKarishma

Tough question imo.

Question analysis: WA. Conclusion stated in the last line.
BE was addressed in the argument so out
CD not relevant out
A is the last man standing

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?

Question Type: Weaken the Argument

Conclusion: Younger children do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment. This is why assigned punishments that did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally.

Task at hand: Find an option that shows that not regarding people's intentions as relevant to punishment is not necessarily the reason punishments did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally.

A. 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 option shows that it was not any judgement based on the relevance that caused the punishments not to vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally. It just might be that the children lacked the mature sense of human psychology that would have been needed for them to tell whether harm was produced intentionally or accidentally.

B. In these stories, the severity of the harm produced was clearly stated. Maybe but this does not tell us anything about the younger children's judgement about the intention to cause harm.

C. Younger children are as likely to produce harm unintentionally as are older children. Whether these children produce harm or not is not the issue here.

D. The older children assigned punishment in a way that closely resembled the way adults had assigned punishment in a similar experiment. What the older children did cannot weaken what the younger children did.

E. The younger children assigned punishments that varied according to the severity of the harm done by the agents in the stories. This may be how the children assigned punishment. Presenting the way in which the children actually assigned punishment will not weaken the fact that there was no variation in punishment because younger children do not regard people's intentions as relevant to punishment.

- Nitha Jay
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________