78. 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.
我不是特别明白为什么是was read,再有OG得解释我也看不太懂，希望指点谢谢！！
下面是OG得解释
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. Choice B and E support the conclusion by suggesting that another factor-severity of harm-either possibly (choice B) or actually (choice E) motivated variations in the punishments assigned by younger children. Neither choice C nor choice D affects the conclusion. The conclusion concerns what children recognize about others’ behavior, not children’s own behavior (choice C). The similarity between older children’s and adult’s assignment (choice D) leaves open the question of why younger children’s assignments differed.
谢谢楼上关于was read的解释
我不太明白A为什么weaken conclusion，我怎么觉得是解释conclusion的原因呢。。。。
逻辑过程：
前提（因）：小小孩指派的“惩罚”与犯罪“意图”无关联 ===》结论（果）：小小孩不认为“惩罚”应考虑犯罪“意图”
Weaken方法：割断因果（具体为有因无果）。
A选项提出了“小小孩不能分辨犯罪是否有意图无意图”，即“果”本身不成立，所以无法推出“果”。(该选项迫使提出结论的人作出反应)
我不知道理解water的解释对不对
是说小小孩儿由于根本无法辨清意图与否，所以惩罚和意图无关吗？这样“果”就不成立了？
怎么还是有点别扭
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |