Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S1 · Q22 One child pushed another child

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

One child pushed another child from behind, injuring the second child.

Conclusion

If 1st child intended harm → wrong to push

Evidence

1st child understands the difference between right and wrong.

Evaluation

This is weirdly simple. We might argue that even if the first kid didn't intend harm, it was still wrong to push the second kid. But this author seems to care about whether the first kid knows right from wrong.

Goal

We just need a rule that we know applies to the 1st kid and outputs the judgment that pushing the 2nd kid was wrong.

22.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?

  1. An action that is intended

    Backwards Logic

    "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.

    14% picked this

  2. Correct

    It is wrong for a

    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% picked this

  3. Any act that is wrong

    Reversed Logic

    "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% picked this

  4. An act that harms another

    Weak Premise Match

    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.

    3% picked this

  5. A person who does not

    Opposite Logic

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free