PrepTest 133, Section 1, Question 22
One child pushed another child from behind, injuring(29 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AAn action that(23 more words not shown)
- BIt is wrong(16 more words not shown)
- CAny act that(10 more words not shown)
- DAn act that(31 more words not shown)
- EA person who(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The second child was injured. Does that automatically establish that the first child did something wrong?
The argument adds two relevant ideas: the first child understands right and wrong, and the action is wrong if the child intended the injury. Notice the 'if.' We aren't told that the child definitely meant to hurt anyone. The conclusion is conditional: if that was the intention, then the action was wrong.
That seems familiar enough that we might accept it without noticing the missing rule. But knowing that a child understands right and wrong doesn't define which actions are wrong. We need a principle connecting that understanding and intentional harm to the judgment the argument makes.
What we’re looking for
For the principle question, I'd look for: a person who understands right and wrong acts wrongly by intentionally harming another person. That would support the conclusion as stated, without needing to decide whether this particular push was intentional.
Working the answers
- A
This makes understanding right and wrong a requirement before intentional harm can count as wrong. Meeting a requirement doesn't guarantee the judgment. A leaves open the possibility that the child understands the difference, intentionally harms someone, and yet the action isn't wrong under some additional standard. We need a rule that establishes wrongness in those circumstances, not merely allows it.
- BCorrect
The child understands right and wrong. B says that a person with that understanding acts wrongly by intentionally harming someone. Therefore, if this push was intended to injure the second child, it was wrong. The rule supplies the connection while preserving the conclusion's condition about intention.
- C
This says a wrong act must involve an intention to harm. It doesn't say every intentionally harmful act is wrong. To match the conclusion, we'd need the rule to run from the child's understanding and intended harm to wrongness. C instead tells us something that must be present after an act has already been classified as wrong.
- D
This rule requires the person not to have thought about whether the act would injure someone. That isn't the situation the conclusion addresses. The conclusion concerns an intention to injure, which is different from failing to think about injury. We can't assume D's extra condition just because the push caused harm.
- E
The first child is expressly said to understand right and wrong. E concerns a person who does not. A rule excusing that different person doesn't tell us when the knowledgeable child's action is wrong. It also speaks about responsibility rather than supplying the specific rule the argument needs.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.