PrepTest 156

[lcid:3721] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Some psychologists claim that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
Shows possible alternate cause Shows cause without effect Shows effect without cause Shows the cause and effect are reversed
If not causal argument, anticipate ways to worsen problem with argument
Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would weaken argument

Answer Anticipation

Our ultimate goal is to find the answer choice that weakens the argument. However, it's much easier to do that if we first break down the argument and identify its flaws. Then, weakening the argument is only a matter of finding the answer choice that exploits that flaw. Causation flaws are the most common issue on these questions, so experienced test-takers look for that flaw first. No statements in this argument are causal, so this argument doesn't commit a causation flaw. However, after breaking down this argument, an experienced test-taker would probably notice that this conclusion is expressed in bold, certain terms. These children definitely lack the moral reasoning required to be moral. Usually, when a conclusion is expressed with this much certainty, the author overlooks factors that may make things less black and white. So, what might this author overlook? Well, for one, using kids in studies is a bit tricky, especially when relying on kids' "verbal responses." These kids know, like, 82 words, and now we're trying to use their verbal responses to see if they can engage in moral reasoning? That seems a bit unfair. They may engage in moral reasoning internally, even if they have trouble expressing themselves verbally. There may be other issues with this study that we don't see yet. So, let's keep an open mind as we assess the answer choices. We'll start by asking whether the answer choice weakens the psychologists' belief that kids lack moral reasoning skills.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The children studied by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This doesn't weaken the argument. Even if these kids had a "slightly" higher level of moral reasoning when they were rested, that doesn't mean their moral reasoning skills were good enough for their behavior to be "moral." After all, their responses were still "unsophisticated" on the whole, according to the second group of psychologists.

  2. B
    Adults who respond to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This is entirely consistent with the evidence cited by the second group of psychologists. They argue that children's moral reasoning skills are still too poor to exhibit truly moral behavior. If kids haven't matured enough to exhibit truly moral behavior, we'd expect more mature adults to have better moral reasoning skills. Therefore, evidence that adults have better moral reasoning skills doesn't weaken the psychologists' argument.

  3. C
    The children studied by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This doesn't weaken the argument. Even if these kids exhibited "slightly" better moral reasoning skills when the hypotheticals were about adults and not kids, their skills were still not good enough for their behavior to be "moral." After all, their responses were still "unsophisticated" on the whole, according to the second group of psychologists.

  4. D
    In actual situations involving Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    This answer choice weakens the argument by pointing out another problem with the study. This answer choice suggests that asking kids about hypotheticals may have been misleading. The answer choice suggests that children's moral reasoning is "much higher" in real situations than their moral reasoning in response to hypotheticals. Maybe children aren't mature enough to understand hypotheticals. However, when they're confronted with real situations, they can exhibit better moral reasoning skills — perhaps sophisticated enough moral reasoning for their behavior to qualify as "moral."

    Since this answer choice weakens the argument, we can mark it as a strong contender. Once we've eliminated the remaining options, we can select it confidently.

  5. E
    Some adults who respond Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    This doesn't weaken the argument. Perhaps these adults also lack the moral reasoning skills for their behavior to be truly moral. After all, these psychologists never said that all (or even some) adults' behavior is moral.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion