Psychologist: Some people contend that

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: discredit entirely19% picked this

   is designed to discredit

   Conversationally, we'd say this author doesn't agree that "children should never be reprimanded". But the author doesn't say that contention is wrong. She just says it provides a "dangerous" (not incorrect) answer to the question of how often we should punish our children. Furthermore, we know the author thinks this view is partially laudable (worthy of praise). So it's just too strong to say the author wants to entirely discredit the view. Our author thinks that the view has some merit: it at least makes us question the opposite extreme, that we should always punish kids when they misbehave.

   19%
2. B

   Opposite1% picked this

   is designed to establish as

   Our author is mainly disagreeing with the position, so the argument is certainly not designed to establish that this position is true.

   1%
3. C

   Wrong Conclusion6% picked this

   is designed to establish as well

   The author concedes that the position is somewhat laudable or well-intentioned, but that's the author's concession, not her supported Conclusion. The conclusion is that "it provides a dangerous answer". That's what the author tries to establish, via the premises in the final sentence.

   6%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   claims has a serious flaw though is not

   Why this is right

   This nicely captures "This view is laudable" (not without value) but "gives a dangerous answer" (has a serious flaw).

   Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%
5. E

   Contradicted2% picked this

   claims is less reasonable than any other

   The author makes it seem like the position in the first sentence is more reasonable than the belief that "children should be punished whenever they misbehave". The author finds is a good thing that the position in the first sentence challenges this even-worse belief.

   2%