#8 - Toddlers are not being malicious when they bite people

[lenihil]

Dear PowerScore,

I think the correct answer choice (A) assumes that if the end of an action is solving problems then the action itself is not malicious. However, I can't see why these two things are mutually exclusive. Should I just accept this and move on to other questions? It seems that the logic here confused me.

Thank you for your help.

[Frank Peter]

Hi Leni,

Sometimes the LSAT may present us with questionable logic that we may just have to accept. For example, in this question, we're not being asked to strengthen or weaken the logic, just to take it as is and choose a conforming answer choice.

While it's certainly good to think critically about what you read on the LSAT, just remember that not every question is asking us to identify potential logical flaws.

[lenihil]

Dear Frank,

Thank you very much!

[dvieira]

Hello,

Could someone explain how exactly the right answer is A? More importantly, how to rule out all of the other choices? I am at a loss how to go about this problem and I don't know why...

Thank you for your help!

[cutiepie]

I chose answer choice E. I dont see how toddlers use biting as a technique to "solve problems," as stated in answer choice A, more than using that as a way "to get what they want."

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi dviera and pie,

Let's take this one from the top.

Our stimulus says that toddlers aren't being malicious when they bite. It then gives an example of a child biting when they want a toy as a way to get that toy. It's a causal relationship that maliciousness is not the cause of biting.

We want to strengthen that with a principle. What answer choice would help this conclusion that they aren't malicious? That's our goal here.

Answer choice (A): If biting was a way to solve problems, that would strengthen the idea that it wasn't malicious when they bite. This is the correct answer.

Answer choice (B): This doesn't apply to our situation here. The child is not attention seeking, and it's not clear if this would be malicious or not.

Answer choice (C): This would not apply to the situation either.

Answer choice (D): This doesn't address the malicious issue. This describes more of the goals and responses to biting, not the behavior behind biting.

Answer choice (E): This is similar to answer choice (D). It talks about what the effect of the biting was, not the cause.

Hope that helps!

[zzy1215]

But isn't "conform to which one of the principles/generalization" a Must Be True question? I have read that these are must be true questions that we need to choose an answer that is similar to necessary assumption. How come we need to choose an answer choice that strengthen the argument for this question? Isn't that the task for PSA principles or SA principles?

I have been confused by this question type for a long time... I have seen some questions with "conform" or "illustrate" in the question stem that act just like NA questions, and some like this one... Could you help me with that? Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi zzy,

Principle questions are bit tricky when it comes to classifying the question type based on the wording of the question.

The general pattern/rule of thumb is that when the principle is given in the stimulus and the answers provide specific judgments, and you are asked to pick the judgment that most closely conforms to the principle above, then it's a Must Be True - Principle question.

However, when you get the judgment or specific example in the stimulus and the answers provide principles, and you are asked "The information above most closely conforms to which of the following principles," we'd classify this as a Strengthen - Principle question because you're applying the principle to the judgment essentially to help out that judgment.

While both question stems use the words "most closely conform," where the principle appears in the problem matters.

Either way though, you are looking to best match the principle and the specific example/judgment.

[RottenPJ]

Can you not solve problems through being malicious? I really hate this question, the logic makes no sense to me.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi RottenPJ,

The definition of "malicious" is "intending or intended to do harm." It is the intent or motive that is the key factor. Not every action that causes harm is intended to cause harm. The example in the stimulus is getting at the idea that a toddler may bite someone for reasons other than causing harm to that person, such as getting that person to drop/give them the toy.

While it may be possible in some cases to solve problems while also being malicious, the two can be (and usually are) completely separate motivations, and that is not the situation being described in the stimulus. The stimulus is stating that toddlers bite people for reasons other than intending to harm them, and the example given is a toddler who wants to get a toy and uses biting as a way to attempt to get that toy. In a broader sense (or generalization), this would be an example of a child trying to solve a problem (or achieve a goal) using biting. Answer A best expresses this generalization.