[求助] 请教OG10-78题~~我已经查了以前没有人问过

bluebrume

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.

AlienX

就是說有人講故事給a group of children聽

I read the story to you = You were read the story by me.

which part of the explanation you don't understand?

bluebrume

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。。。。

waterlooer

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)

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-8-10 13:00:42编辑过]

bluebrume

 

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

 

danielyan86

water的意思是不是这个：
A里面实际是说更小的小孩根本就没有意图这个概念。按照这说法，自然他们在给罪犯量刑的时候就不会考虑意图这个因素了。但是文中结论明明说小小孩认为意图和犯罪量刑无关，这就说明了小小孩还是懂得意图是个什么东西的。这样就有些矛盾了。是不是？
但是我觉得，小小孩之前不了解意图的概念和结论强调的东西没啥关系哇。因为人家根本不知道世界上有意图这种东西，那量刑的时候直接不去想这个因素不就得了。比如说有人问小小孩，为啥给这几个人判刑不一样，小小孩回答，因为他们造成不同程度的伤害了。这部也是说明了结论，即：do not regard people’s intentions as relevant to punishment。
望进一步指示！

AlienX

重點就是這句Younger children do not regard people’s intentions as relevant to punishment.
在句含有的其中一個必要條件: younger children可分辨intential&accidential造成的harm.

another example:
Peter didn't have time to answer any question in the exam; therefore, he got 0 in the exam.

weaken: Peter actually had time to answer the questions in the exam, but he didn't know how to answer any of the question.

iamwuyan

原文的因: 小孩儿听故事的时候无法分别伤害是有意图的还是无意图的

            果: 他们无法把惩罚措施跟HARM是有意图还是无疑联系在一起

削弱: 事实上小孩儿听故事时确实可分辨HARM是有意图还是无意图