PrepTest 116

Incorrect. The conclusion is about the net effect of moral socialization, not whether it could be modified to have a positive net effect. This answer would be correct in an argument that brought up a downside to a practice and then concluded that the practice should be abandoned, not modified.

Incorrect. The argument brings up two effects of moral socialization, so it doesn't rule out causality because the correlation isn't 1:1. In fact, it relies on moral socialization being a cause of certain suffering despite affecting only many" who experience it.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), the argument never casts judgment on what should be done with moral socialization—the conclusion is limited to saying that it has a negative net effect as far as suffering is concerned.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Shame over immoral behavior:
(1) Pro — It socializes children
(2) Con — It makes many develop feelings of guilt/self—loathing that are a hardship
Conclusion — Moral socialization, overall, increases suffering

Answer Anticipation:
This Errors in Reasoning question talks about a specific method of socializing children—shaming them over moral behavior. The conclusion refers to this as moral socialization, which is close enough that we shouldn't see that as a term shift (though if an answer suggests that there is a jump there, we'll revisit).

The premises here talk about a positive of moral socialization (it works to socialize children), and a negative (guilt/self—loathing). From this, the argument concludes that the practice, overall, increases suffering.

First off, suffering" seems to be a new concept in the conclusion—do we have a term that justifies that? It does note that the downside of moral socialization is guilt and self—loathing that is a serious hardship—it's hard to argue that someone facing a serious hardship due to these negative emotions isn't suffering. So there's not much of a gap there.

Second, we need to consider the other part of the conclusion—the "net effect" of moral socialization. While the premises do establish a downside to the practice, they also note that it works—it's one of the "most important" ways that society socializes children. Socializing children for immoral behavior might seriously curtail suffering by preventing behavior that causes suffering in others and preventing social ostracization that might come from antisocial behavior. So the argument assumes that the net effect is in favor of suffering while not comparing the scale of the positive of the practice to the negative. In fact, it seems as if the practice works on most children, but only "many" children end up with the downside—suggesting that the balance might be in favor of decreasing suffering.

Let's find an answer that addresses this issue of not comparing the pros and cons to justify the conclusion about net effect.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the argument assumes something that increases suffering in some has the net effect of increasing suffering. It would need to be shown that it doesn't decrease suffering elsewhere at a scale that more than balances out those who have guilt/self—loathing in order to reach this conclusion. In highlighting the assumption of this argument, this answer correctly points out the error in reasoning.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever you see a conclusion that is about a net effect or balance, or it implies a comparison between competing forces, you should consider whether that comparison is actually established.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that no one can have a positive reaction—just that the negative reaction outweighs the positive. It also limits discussing suffering—the argument considers the possibility that moral socialization improves overall socialization while increasing suffering by hurting a few.