Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 3 · Question 16

Incorrect. The Psychologist doesn't want to discredit it entirely since it "laudabl[y]" challenges the view that children should always be punished for any misbehavior. She just thinks it goes too far in the other direction in saying they should never be punished.

Incorrect. The Psychologist believes that the view gives a "dangerous" answer to a question, so she doesn't want to establish it as true.

Incorrect. This answer can be tempting, but there are two problems with it. First, at best, it's incomplete in that it doesn't address the Psychologist's view that it makes a dangerous recommendation. Second, the Psychologist does note that the view laudably challenges an incorrect view, but that's not the same as saying it's well-intentioned. That challenge could be an unintended aspect of the view.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing view: Children should never be reprimanded because it hurts their self-esteem.

Psychologist:
Pro of view - It recognizes kids shouldn't be punished for everything
Pivot - Never punishing children leads them to repeat the bad behavior
Conclusion - The opposing view is wrong and even dangerous

Answer Anticipation:
The question asks us about the opposing point—what "[s]ome people" claim about reprimanding children.

The Psychologist disagrees with this view. However, before calling it "dangerous," she does say that it is "laudable," so the correct answer should reflect this mixed view. It'll likely highlight that the view recognizes something important and true, but that it's ultimate recommendation is wrong.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the Psychologist's mixed opinion of the opposing view. She calls it both laudable and dangerous, which lines up with having value but also having a serious flaw, as this answer states.

Key Takeaway:
When the author of an argument qualifies their conclusion, or brings up a concession or mixed opinion, it's likely that it will be relevant to the correct answer, so be sure to pay attention to it!

Incorrect. The author doesn't compare the reasonableness of the two extreme views presented (that children should always or never be punished). If anything, in lauding the opposing view for challenging another view, the Psychologist implies she's more on board with it than that other view, which would contradict this answer.