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.

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.

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.

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.

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.