WeakenDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Some people think kids are moral because they are kind, but others say kids aren't truly moral because they can't explain their reasoning very well when asked about hypothetical problems.

Conclusion: Children do not possess the moral reasoning skills required for their helpful actions to be considered truly moral.

Reasoning: True morality requires a clear understanding of moral principles, yet children provide very unsophisticated verbal explanations when asked about hypothetical moral dilemmas.

Analysis: To weaken this argument, we need to drive a wedge between 'verbal sophistication' and 'actual reasoning skill.' The second group assumes that because children can't articulate their reasons well in a test, they don't have those reasons at all. Look for an answer that suggests the testing method is flawed—perhaps children have the capacity for moral reasoning but simply lack the vocabulary to express it to researchers.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

6.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn by the second group of psychologists?

Correct Answer
D
D directly undercuts the evidential basis: if in real moral dilemmas children show a much higher level of moral reasoning than in the study of hypotheticals, then the second group’s conclusion—drawn from hypothetical, verbal responses—no longer holds.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep