Summarize Argument
A group of psychologists argues that young children’s compassionate behavior in certain situations demonstrates that moral behavior begins early in life. A second group of psychologists disagrees, claiming that an empathetic response (by itself) is not a moral behavior. They argue that moral behavior requires an understanding of moral principles and reasoning skills, which the children lack based on their unsophisticated verbal responses to hypothetical dilemmas.
Notable Assumptions
The children’s verbal responses to the hypothetical dilemmas accurately measures their moral reasoning skills.
A
The children studied by the second group of psychologists displayed a slightly higher level of moral reasoning when they were well rested than when they were tired.
That some children displayed “slightly higher” levels of reasoning when they were well-rested does not impact the argument. The argument is focused on whether the children’s responses to hypothetical dilemmas indicate their moral reasoning abilities.
B
Adults who respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas display a much higher level of moral reasoning than do children who responded to the same hypothetical moral dilemmas.
If anything, this supports the argument by showing that moral reasoning develops later in life. It does not cast doubt on the claim that *children* lack moral reasoning skills.
C
The children studied by the second group of psychologists displayed a slightly higher level of moral reasoning in response to hypothetical dilemmas involving adults than in response to hypothetical dilemmas involving children.
This only details some variation in how the children responded to certain hypotheticals. It does nothing to cast doubt on the second group of psychologists’ main conclusion.
D
In actual situations involving moral dilemmas, children display a much higher level of moral reasoning than did the children who, in the study by the second group of psychologists, responded only to hypothetical dilemmas.
This calls out a key assumption and gets to the heart of the argument’s reasoning. This suggests that the children’s verbal responses to hypothetical dilemmas do not accurately reflect their reasoning in real-life situations.
E
Some adults who respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas reason at about the same level as children who respond to the same hypothetical moral dilemmas.
A comparison between children and adults does nothing to weaken the argument. The argument hinges on children’s subpar response to hypothetical dilemmas and that “proving” that they do not have moral reasoning.
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
Summary
If it makes others more virtuous → do it.
If it makes others less virtuous → do it.
For people who are more virtuous → praise makes them less virtuous.
For people who are less virtuous → praise makes them more virtuous.
Nobody except for the more virtuous deserve praise. In other words, if you’re not the more virtuous, you don’t deserve praise. If you are the more virtuous, then you do deserve praise.
If it makes others less virtuous → do it.
For people who are more virtuous → praise makes them less virtuous.
For people who are less virtuous → praise makes them more virtuous.
Nobody except for the more virtuous deserve praise. In other words, if you’re not the more virtuous, you don’t deserve praise. If you are the more virtuous, then you do deserve praise.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
People who are more virtuous should not be praised (because it will make them less virtuous).
People who are less virtuous should be praised (because it will make them more virtuous).
People who deserve praise (the more virtuous) should not be praised.
People who do not deserve praise (the less virtuous) should be praised.
(Make sure to keep “should be praised” and “deserve praise” distinct. These are not the same concepts.)
People who are less virtuous should be praised (because it will make them more virtuous).
People who deserve praise (the more virtuous) should not be praised.
People who do not deserve praise (the less virtuous) should be praised.
(Make sure to keep “should be praised” and “deserve praise” distinct. These are not the same concepts.)
A
We should withhold praise from those who deserve it least.
People who don’t deserve praise (the less virtuous) actually should be praised, because it will make them more virtuous.
B
We should not fail to praise those who deserve it most.
People who deserve praise (the more virtuous) actually should not be praised (because it will make them less virtuous).
C
We should praise those who do not deserve it and withhold praise from those who deserve it.
Supported. Those who don’t deserve it are the less virtuous. And we should praise the less virtuous (because it makes them more virtuous). Those who do deserve it are the more virtuous. And we should not praise them (because it makes them less virtuous).
D
We should praise everyone, regardless of whether or not they deserve it.
Anti-supported, because we should not praise the more virtuous (because it will make them less virtuous).
E
We should withhold praise from everyone, regardless of whether or not they deserve it.
Anti-supported, because we should praise the less virtuous (because it will make them more virtuous).
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
This page shows a recording of a live class. We're working hard to create our standard, concise explanation videos for the questions in this PrepTest. Thank you for your patience!
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why were fewer bass caught after the power plant started discharging wastewater into the river?
Objective
The correct answer must fail to explain why fewer bass were caught downstream. Meanwhile, every wrong answer will state a difference between the periods before and after the power plant opened that implies bass were more scarce afterward, or that bass present were caught at a lower rate.
A
The discharged wastewater made the river more attractive to fish that are the natural predators of bass.
This would explain why fewer bass were caught after the power plant opened. Their predators became more prevalent, so the number of bass declined.
B
The discharged water was warmer than the normal river temperature, leading the bass to seek cooler water elsewhere.
This would explain why fewer bass were caught after the power plant opened. They fled for cooler water, decreasing their numbers in that part of the river.
C
Because of the new plant, access to the part of the river downstream from the plant was improved, leading to an increase in the number of anglers fishing for bass.
This does not explain the decrease because more anglers would cause more bass to be caught. This would contribute to an increase in the number of bass caught, not a decrease.
D
Because of the new plant, the level of noise downstream increased, making that section of the river a less popular place for anglers to fish.
This would explain why fewer bass were caught downstream. There may be no fewer bass, but the number of anglers fishing for them decreased, leading to fewer bass being caught overall.
E
The discharged wastewater created turbulence that disrupted the vegetation of the river downstream, destroying some of the bass’s natural habitat.
This would explain why fewer bass were caught downstream. Their habitat was destroyed, so bass perished or fled, leading to a decrease in their population.