Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S3 · Q16 Psychologist: Some people contend that

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Psychologist: Some people contend that children should never be reprimanded.

Conclusion

The view that any criticism, let alone punishment harms children's self-esteem is laudable but gives a dangerous answer to the question of how often punishment should be inflicted.

Evidence

When parents never reprimand their children, they are in effect rewarding them for unacceptable behavior, and rewarded behavior tends to recur.

Evaluate

Like so many Role and Main Conclusion questions, this argument has a Rebuttal structure. The author concedes some merit to the view she's rebutting . But she thinks the view is dangerous because it would be bad if children never got punished when they misbehave.

Goal

We're being asked about how the very first sentence functions in this argument. Our author definitely disagrees with the contention that "children should never be reprimanded". Her premises are all about countering that view: if we never reprimand kids, the kids are rewarded for their unacceptable behavior and will tend to behave that way again.

16.

The view that children should never be reprimanded functions in the psychologist's argument as a statement of a position that the psychologist's argument

  1. is designed to discredit entirely

    Too Strong: discredit entirely

    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% picked this

  2. is designed to establish as

    Opposite

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

    1% picked this

  3. is designed to establish as

    Wrong Conclusion

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    claims has a serious flaw

    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.

    73% picked this

  5. claims is less reasonable than

    Contradicted

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free