#22 - One child pushed another child from behind

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus deals with the issue of intent as it relates to the question of whether an act that was perpetrated by a child, and caused harm, could be considered “wrong.” The very basic scenario discussed here is that of one child, who has a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong, pushing and injuring another child from behind. The author concludes that if the injurious act was intentional, it was wrong to push the other child:

• Premise: A child pushed and injured another child from behind.
  
  Premise: The child who did the pushing understands the difference between right and wrong.
  
  Conclusion: If intent is added to this understanding, then the act was wrong.

The question asks for the principle which most justifies the author’s conclusion. In other words, the correct answer choice will provide a principle which dictates that intentional injurious acts in such cases are wrong.

Answer choice (A): This choice provides that an intentionally harmful act is wrong only if there is an understanding on the part of the perpetrator of the difference between right and wrong. In other words, this choice frames the understanding of the difference between right and wrong as a necessary condition to intentional harm’s being wrong:

• Intentionally harming someone is wrong understand right/wrong distinction

This choice can be safely ruled out, as it does not strengthen the author’s conclusion that, if intentional, the act was wrong.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This choice provides link to intent that strengthens the conclusion drawn by the author and discussed above.

If, as this choice provides, it is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong (in the stimulus’ scenario, the child who does the pushing) to intentionally injure another, this principle clearly supports the author’s conclusion in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): This choice provides that if an act is wrong, then it is done with the specific intent to cause harm:

• Act is wrong Done with harmful intent

This choice does not help to establish that the child’s act was wrong if intentional, as concluded by the author, so it should be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (D): This choice provides that if a person understands the difference between right and wrong, and did not consider whether the act would be harmful, then it is wrong to harm another:

• Understand right/wrong distinction
  + wrong to harm another
  Not consider whether act would harm

The author doesn’t mention whether the child considered the harm that might result from his action, so the conditional rule provided here cannot be applied to the case in the stimulus, and does not help to justify the author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (E): This choice provides that one who doesn’t understand the right/wrong distinction is not responsible for harming another. The stimulus provided that the child did understand the difference between right and wrong. Since this choice doesn’t apply to the scenario presented in the stimulus, it cannot help to justify the author’s conclusion.

[siennahwoo]

Could you explain why A is wrong?

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Sienna,

Welcome!

In the stimulus, we are given three premises:
1. Child A injures Child B.
2. Child A understands the difference between right and wrong.
3. Child A intended to injure Child B. (This was given as part of the conclusion, but it is an added premise - note the word "If").

Conclusion: Child A's action was wrong.

The correct answer choice will be a general principle that you can apply to this specific situation and get to the conclusion that Child A's actions were wrong. Basically, you want some conglomeration of "It is wrong for [any of the premises to occur]" or "If [any of the premises occur], it is wrong."

Answer choice (A) is a conditional statement. I spot the phrase "only if," which is a Necessary Condition Indicator. Sounds good so far! Something that I can diagram! Here, "only if" modifies the phrase "the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong" so that's the necessary condition for an action to be wrong. You can diagram that as:
An action that is intended to harm another person is wrong the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong

In other words, If an action that is intended to harm another person is wrong, then the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong.

That's backwards. We already know Child A understood right from wrong. We want a principle that will allow us to conclude that the action was wrong. What we want is something that says "If the person understands the difference between right and wrong, then an action that is intended to harm another person is wrong." That's answer choice (B).

Hope that helps.

[plzhelpme101]

Is not the phrase that comes after if Supposed to be in the sufficient condition? Why is it in the necessary here?

Why would A not be diagrammed as “if the person who performed the action understands right from wrong“ —> “The action intended to harm another person is wrong.”

If this isn’t true, how would you diagram B conditionally?

I’m really confused

[Jeremy Press]

Hi plzhelp,

Watch out for the word "only!" If "only" is used, even in conjunction with "if," it's marking off a necessary condition. So the phrase "only if" should be read as an indicator of a necessary condition. Thus, in answer choice A, since "only if" modifies "the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong," that condition (person understanding difference between right and wrong) should be on the right side (the necessary condition side) of the arrow.

Answer choice B doesn't have the traditional indicators of conditionality, but you have to "translate" the statement into conditional terms if you want to diagram it. What the sentence is saying is that anyone [sufficient condition] who understands the difference between right and wrong and acts intentionally to harm someone is doing something wrong. Thus, we'd diagram as:

Understand Difference Between Right/Wrong AND Intentionally Harm Wrong

I hope this helps!