A group of children of various ages was read stories in which people caused harm, some of those people doing so intentionally, and some accidentally. When asked about appropriate punishments for those who had caused harm, the younger children, unlike the older ones, assigned punishments that did not vary according to whether the harm was done intentionally or accidentally. Younger children, then, do not regard people’s intentions as relevant to punishment.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?
(A) In interpreting these stories, the listeners had to draw on a relatively mature sense of human psychology in order to tell whether harm was produced intentionally or accidentally.
(B) In these stories, the severity of the harm produced was clearly stated.
(C) Younger children are as likely to produce harm unintentionally as are older children.
(D) The older children assigned punishment in a way that closely resembled the way adults had assigned punishment in a similar experiment.
(E) The younger children assigned punishments that varied according to the severity of the harm done by the agents in the stories.
Choice A, the best answer, indicates that younger children might be unable to tell whether the harm in the stories was produced intentionally. Thus, even if younger children do regard people’s intentions as relevant, they might be unable to apply this criterion here. Therefore, A undermines the conclusion’s support.
我不明白OG的解释younger children might be unable to tell whether the harm in the stories was produced intentionally 这不是支持原文吗，怎么起到削弱呀？
intentions[意图]可分两种：intentionally[有意的] or accidentally[无意的]；
原题的conclusion：小孩子认为不管否是有意，只要是犯错误，都要惩罚。
言下之意，小孩子能分清楚故事人物谁是有意的，谁是无意的，只是认为惩罚应该一致。
A说小孩子连有意无意都分不清，这样就weaken了原conclusion
我也谢一个。。
题意不容易读明白啊。。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |