One child pushed another child

Answer choices

1. A

   Backwards Logic13% picked this

   An action that is intended to harm another person is wrong only if the person who performed the action understands the

   "Only if" always signifies a Right-Side idea (a necessary condition). So this rule would look like this: Action person who performed action was wrong ? knows diff between right/wrong This is going from Conclusion to Premise, which is the reverse of what we want.

   13%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to

   Why this is right

   It is A to be B = "B ? A", so this answer says: understand difference wrong to intentionally between right and ? harm wrong The 1st kid does understand the difference, so it would be wrong for him to have intentionally harmed the 2nd kid. Thus, we've proven the conclusion that "if the push was meant to intentionally harm, then it was wrong".

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   79%
3. C

   Reversed Logic3% picked this

   Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of

   "Any" always indicates a Left Side idea (a sufficient condition). This rule would look like this: Act is wrong ? done w/ intent of causing harm That's going from Conclusion to Premise, which is the reverse of what we want.

   3%
4. D

   Weak Premise Match4% picked this

   An act that harms another person is wrong if the person who did it understands the difference between right and wrong and did not

   This almost works. It says: Understand diff between right and wrong + ? harmful action wrong Did not think about whether an action would injure someone We know that the 1st kid understands the difference between right and wrong. Do we know whether he thought about whether the act would injure the other person? No. Is our author's conclusion saying, "So if the first kid didn't think about whether pushing the 2nd kid would injure him, it was wrong to push him"? No. The language we get isn't whether or not you thought about whether an action would injure, it's about whether you intended it to injure.

   4%
5. E

   Opposite Logic1% picked this

   A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility

   This says: don't understand diff not responsible between right/wrong ? for harming The author's logic is closer to saying do understand diff are responsible between right/wrong ? for harming Technically, the conclusion is about whether an action was wrong or not, not whether or not someone is responsible for something. But we don't need to get that picky, when the logic is in opposite form. This is saying if Premise isn't true, then Conclusion isn't true That's the opposite of what we're looking for.

   1%