Q16 - Psychologist: Some people contend that children should

[charmayne.palomba]

PT46, S3, Q16 (Analyze Argument (function))

(D) is correct.

In any question where we’re asked to analyze the argument, start by finding the conclusion. In this case, it doesn’t jump out at us. The psychologist presents one theory, which is that it’s best to never reprimand children, and offers a reason to applaud that theory. Then he points out that the theory is problematic, since not reprimanding children is in effect rewarding them for bad behavior, which in turn tends to cause that behavior to recur. We can think of the psychologist’s argument as:

not reprimanding children leads to recurring bad behavior

-->

the view that children should not be reprimanded is flawed

If that is the psychologist’s argument, what role does the view that children should not be reprimanded play in the argument? Generally speaking, it’s the theory the psychologist is finding fault with: we can think of it as the opposing point.

(D) is the closest match. Indeed, the psychologist does claim that the view has a serious flaw (it increases the chances that children will continue bad behavior), but also recognizes its value. Looks good!

(A) seems tempting. The author is calling the view into question, but is his purpose to discredit it entirely? He says that the view is "laudable" for challenging the idea that it’s always best to punish children, so he clearly sees some value in it. This is too extreme.

(B) While the psychologist does admit that the view isn’t entirely bad, admitting that there are some benefits to the view is not the same as claiming that it’s "true" in any objective sense. Perhaps more importantly, his argument is not designed to establish it as true, so we can eliminate this choice.

(C) This answer choice is a somewhat more reasonable version of (B). The psychologist does establish the view as "laudable" (which we can re-word as well-intentioned), but that is by no means what the argument is designed to do.

(E) There are no other views mentioned, so we can eliminate this answer right away.

[jennifer]

Simply said..is the word "laudable" the key to getting this question correct? Without giving this word a lot of weight, it is difficult to determine the correct answer. Thank you.

[noah]

It definitely helps if you know what it means!

I tried to imagine how I might figure this out without knowing the meaning. I think it would have to be based on the "yet." In that sentence we learn that the view is SOMETHING and then we get some support - and then we hear "yet" something is bad about it.

But, in the end, thank your high school English teacher for making you learn "laudable!"

[jamiejames]

the only reason I got this right, was I had to learn Latin for 8 years going to school in England, and I remembered "laudo" meant "to praise." The only time Latin has been useful to me haha. Oh, LSAT.

[noah]

the only reason I got this right, was I had to learn Latin for 8 years going to school in England, and I remembered "laudo" meant "to praise." The only time Latin has been useful to me haha. Oh, LSAT.

Can you tell me how to say "The farmer went to war?" From what I remember, that's all we seemed to talk about. But, then again, I got a D in Latin.

[jamiejames]

the only reason I got this right, was I had to learn Latin for 8 years going to school in England, and I remembered "laudo" meant "to praise." The only time Latin has been useful to me haha. Oh, LSAT.

Can you tell me how to say "The farmer went to war?" From what I remember, that's all we seemed to talk about. But, then again, I got a D in Latin.

Haha, yeah, and the names were always "Marcus" or "Magnus." If my brain didn't immediately dump 99% of the Latin I knew after I was no longer required to take it, I would translate that sentence for sure