It can be inferred that the term “public duty” (line 33) in the context of the passage means which of答案解析-雷哥GRE

雷哥网GRE > 阅读&逻辑 > 冲分救命题（机经） > 6624

冲分救命题（机经） -6624【medium】 00:00:00 关闭计时

纠错

The age at which young children begin to make moral discriminations about harmful actions committed against themselves or others has been the focus of recent research into the moral development of children. Until recently, child psychologists supported pioneer developmentalist Jean. Piaget in his hypothesis that because of their immaturity, children under age seven do not take into account the intentions of a person committing accidental or deliberate harm, but rather simply assign punishment for transgressions on the basis of the magnitude of the negative consequences caused. According to Piaget, children under age seven occupy the first stage of moral development, which is characterized by moral absolutism (rules made by authorities must be obeyed) and imminent justice (if rules are broken, punishment will be meted (to give out by measure: DOLE usually used with out “mete out punishment”) out). Until young children mature, their moral judgments are based entirely on the effect rather than the cause of a transgression. However, in recent research, Keasey found that six-year-old children not only distinguish between accidental and intentional harm, but also judge intentional harm as naughtier, regardless of the amount of damage produced. Both of these findings seem to indicate that children, at an earlier age than Piaget claimed, advance into the second stage of moral development, moral autonomy, in which they accept social rules but view them as more arbitrary than do children in the first stage.

Keasey’s research raises two key questions for developmental psychologists about children under age seven: do they recognize justifications for harmful actions, and do they make distinctions between harmful acts that are preventable and those acts that have unforeseen harmful consequences? Studies indicate that justifications excusing harmful actions might include public duty, self-defense, and provocation. For example, Nesdale and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’s action was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to “Bonnie wrecks Ann’s pretend house” depending on whether Bonnie did it “so somebody won’t fall over it” or because Bonnie wanted “to make Ann feel bad.” Thus, a child of five begins to understand that certain harmful actions, though intentional, can be justified; the constraints of moral absolutism no longer solely guide their judgments.

Psychologists have determined that during kindergarten children learn to make subtle distinctions involving harm. Darley observed that among acts involving unintentional harm, six-year-old children just entering kindergarten could not differentiate between foreseeable, and thus preventable, harm and unforeseeable harm for which the perpetrator cannot be blamed. Seven months later, however, Darley found that these same children could make both distinctions, thus demonstrating that they had become morally autonomous.

It can be inferred that the term “public duty” (line 33) in the context of the passage means which of the following?

The necessity to apprehend perpetrators. The responsibility to punish transgressors An obligation to prevent harm to another The assignment of punishment for harmful action A justification for punishing transgressions

正确答案： C 耗时：

该题平均耗时：1分50秒，平均正确率：49 %，难度系数：4 。该题由网友admin提供。更多GRE题目请点击上传

做题笔记

暂无做题笔记

网友解析

我有更好的解析

当前版本由长颈鹿在哪里呀更新于2019-03-18 22:52:22 感谢由长颈鹿在哪里呀对此题目的解答所做出的贡献。

这道题需要结合public duty的语义和文中的内容来判断，首先public duty是指公众的责任感，而后文的内容提到 children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’s action was justified by public duty，孩子能考虑侵略者的行为能否被public duty辩解，所以再看选项，只有C符合。

1V1 预约名师一对一题目解析课程

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

GM34

说实话我一开始定位到这一句的时候我感觉所谓的public duty和我们传统理解上不太一样，就是比如我们知道A是一个终极大boss，只要KO了他就可以救更多人，当然传统的public duty比较刻板印象就是：不论是谁，都不能随意剥夺别人的生命（哪怕是大boss的），但是这里的public duty感觉是有一个英雄通过干掉了这个大boss，拯救了更多的人，这里就是一个道德命题了，所以我一开始选了A，觉得就是要去理解这个英雄之所以冒天下之大不韪去干掉这个boss，因为文中有说justifications excusing harmful actions为KO的行为进行正当辩护的感觉，那么就是我之前想到的这种“道德逆境”。但是后面又说了“For example, Nesdale and Rule concluded that children were capable of considering whether or not an aggressor’s action was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to “Bonnie wrecks Ann’s pretend house” depending on whether Bonnie did it “so somebody won’t fall over it” or because Bonnie wanted “to make Ann feel bad.”有种两害取其轻的大义感在里面，A和C比，可能C更加侧重审判的角度应该怎么思考，而A更多是旁观者心态，但是这里孩子要做的事情不是旁观，而是判断，所以C更好一点

0 回复

2021-11-28 15:32:39

204461ddvc

落脚点位置应该是：was justified by public duty: five year olds reacted very differently to “Bonnie wrecks Ann’s pretend house” depending on whether Bonnie did it “so somebody won’t fall over it” or because Bonnie wanted “to make Ann feel bad.” 这里给出了一个 public duty的实例

0 回复

2021-09-07 15:55:26

172644oy

为什么不选D呢？

0 回复

2021-07-06 15:37:17

做题笔记

网友解析

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

请选择错误类型：

请描述一下这个错误：

关于GRE

关于课程

联系我们