* A group of children of various ages was read stories

[cumulonimbus]

Source - Official GMAT Exam free gmail mailer

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.

I dont know the OA, I chose B

A- an additional assumption is required, that younger children are immature
B - conclusion says that punishments are given without taking intentions into consideration - for this wee need to know that both these datas were provided clearly to the listeners.

Intention Severity
same same - no conclusion
same diff - W the conclusion
Diff same - S the conclusion
Diff diff - no conclusion

C - neither S nor W, as it provides no information about how decisions are made
D - neither S nor W, as it provides a comparison between wrong/irrelevant things
E - Punishments provided based on harm done, but no relation between harm done and intention. It is possible that the act that caused most harm and was given a severest punishment was intentional (- no conclusion can be made) or accidental - conclusion can be made that intentions are not taken into consideration.

Please give your thoughts on my reasoning above and what should be the correct answer.

[RonPurewal]

hi --

Source - Official GMAT Exam free gmail mailer

what is "Official GMAT Exam free gmail mailer"? I don't know what this is.

* if this problem is not the GMAT PREP software, then this problem doesn't belong in this folder.
* if this problem is from the GMAT PREP software, please post a screenshot as proof.
thanks.

also, please read the forum rules -- you MUST post the official answer with all questions.
official problems are always accompanied by answers.

[cumulonimbus]

Hi Ron,

How do I attach?

[jnelson0612]

Hi Ron,

How do I attach?

Just post it at postimage.org and then post the link here.

[cumulonimbus]

Hi Ron,

How do I attach?

Just post it at postimage.org and then post the link here.

http://s20.postimg.org/a5s45j0e5/Screen ... _06_33.jpg
http://s20.postimg.org/ktvv4dad9/Screen ... _06_33.jpg
http://s20.postimg.org/cpnqzmny5/Screen ... _06_33.jpg

[RonPurewal]

so wait, they don't include the answers (and/or a link to the answers, somewhere) with these things?
weird...

the correct answer should be (a).

A- an additional assumption is required, that younger children are immature

this is not an "additional assumption"; it's (a) basic common sense, and, moreover, (b) an essential feature of how "immature" is defined.
(try defining "immature" without using the idea of behavior that's typical of someone younger or less developed; you won't really be able to.)

what's really important here is (a). EVERY strengthen/weaken question will demand, to some degree, that you use a certain amount of ordinary human intuition / common sense / basic understanding of "how the world works".
that's the whole point of putting strengthen/weaken questions on the exam: because you have to think about them like a human being from planet earth, and not like a computer that is limited to using formal logic.
if you try to solve strengthen/weaken problems with "if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C" type logic, you will be pretty much completely unable to solve any of them, ever.

by the way, it's quite easy to find the answer to this problem, if you don't have it -- just copy the first few words, paste them into google, and visit one of the first couple of search results. voilà.
(this problem is also in the 10th edition official guide.)