LSAT 119 – Section 3 – Question 16

LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 16

June 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:11

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT119 S3 Q16
+LR
Argument part +AP
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
12%
157
B
1%
155
C
4%
158
D
82%
165
E
1%
155
137
147
158
 +Medium 145.195 +SubsectionEasier

Psychologist: Some people contend that children should never be reprimanded. Any criticism, let alone punishment, they say, harms children’s self-esteem. This view is laudable in its challenge to the belief that children should be punished whenever they misbehave, yet it gives a dangerous answer to the question of how often punishment should be inflicted. When parents never reprimand their children, they are in effect rewarding them for unacceptable behavior, and rewarded behavior tends to recur.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The psychologist refutes the idea that children should never be reprimanded or punished. While it has some merit, she says this idea is dangerous because never punishing children rewards them for bad behavior. This encourages them to continue to misbehave.

Identify Argument Part
The contention that children should never be reprimanded is what the argument is designed to refute. The psychologist allows that the idea has some merit, but has a very undesirable consequence.

A
is designed to discredit entirely
This answer choice is not completely accurate because while the argument ultimately refutes the view, it does not “entirely” discredit it. The argument is “laudable,” meaning it has some good qualities, it just has a big problem.
B
is designed to establish as true
This is incorrect because the psychologist is refuting this view, saying that it has dangerous results.
C
is designed to establish as well intentioned
While the author does address the well-intentioned parts of the argument, the argument’s true goal is to establish why this view is problematic.
D
claims has a serious flaw though is not without value
This most accurately describes the role of the view in the argument. The author argues the view is “dangerous” or seriously flawed, with the caveat that part of the view is “laudable” or valuable.
E
claims is less reasonable than any other view mentioned
No other view is mentioned. The author argues there is a problem with the view, not about its relative reasonableness.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply