Q3 asks: on what points would Piaget and Keasey disagree?
The answer is in the first paragraph
Piaget's view:
"because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for transgressions on the basis of the magnitude of the negative consequences caused."
Keasey's view:
"six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as naughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced."
So Piaget and Keasey disagree about the moral reasoning of 6-year olds
Piaget says they do not consider the intentions of the 'harmer', while Keasey says they do.
Both of them accept that 7-year olds do distinguish between intentional and unintentional harm
Let's look at the answer choices now
(A) The kinds of excuses children give for harmful acts they commit
- irrelevant, no idea, not discussed
- the passage discusses how children judge the harm done by others, not the harm they themselves do
(B) The age at which children begin to discriminate between intentional and unintentional harm
- PERFECT MATCH
(C) The intentions children have in perpetrating harm
- irrelevant, no idea, not discussed
- same as A
(D) The circumstances under which children punish harmful acts
- irrelevant, no idea, not discussed
- the passage never suggests that the children punish harmful acts; it discusses how children judge the harmful acts done by others
(E) The justifications children recognize for mitigating punishment for harmful acts
- irrelevant, no idea, not discussed
- we do now know Piaget's and Keasey's ideas on what justifications children recognise
Posted from my mobile device _________________
Verbal Reasoning Instructor
GRE, GMAT