BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Children and crime

Expert replies
by geemat » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:59 am
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'm ok with the OA [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] but I'm not getting how B & E r supporting the conclusion as stated in OG10. Please help in understand :)
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by punitkaur » Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:40 am
IMO, B & E are sort of closing gaps in the argument by eliminating alternate causes (severity of the harm caused- a factor that children could have used) that could have been the reason for the children to not regard people's intention relevant to punsihment. By eliminating alternate cause/reasons, you strengthen a conclusion.
Join the discussion

by shadowsjc » Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:52 am
The conclusion is that younger children don't take intent into account when assigning punishment.

B) states that severity of the harm was clearly stated in the stories the children read. This eliminates an unknown in the argument (maybe the children didn't know how badly the people got hurt), which in turn strengthens the argument

E) states that the younger children recommended a varied series of punishments based on the severity of the action. For example, this implies that someone who intentionally slapped someone might get less of a punishment than someone who accidentally killed someone, even though one intended to harm a person and the other one didn't. Therefore, intent is not taken into account by the young children in this scenario, which again supports the conclusion
my GMAT debrief: https://www.beatthegmat.com/came-through ... 44327.html

You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,
nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.
A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right, but it will not come near you.

- Psalm 91: 5-7
Join the discussion