Self-study
Some psychologists claim that empathic responses are forms of moral behavior. ██████ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ █████████████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █ ██████ █████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █ █████ █████████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ █ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ███████████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ████████████ █████ █████████ █████ █████████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ █████ █████████ ███ █████ █████████ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██████
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.
6.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████████
a
The children studied ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████████ █████████ █ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████
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.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
b
Adults who respond ██ ████████████ █████ ████████ ███████ █ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ █████████
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 ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████████ █████████ █ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████████ ████████ █████████ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████████ ████████ █████████ █████████
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.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
d
In actual situations █████████ █████ █████████ ████████ ███████ █ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████████ █████████ ████ ██ ████████████ █████████
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.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
e
Some adults who ███████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████ █████ █████████
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.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.