QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen
CONCLUSION: The first child was wrong to push the second child, assuming the first child intended to harm the second child.
REASONING: The first child pushed the second child from behind. The first child understands the difference between right and wrong.
ANALYSIS: We need a principle that actually tells us that it’s wrong to push someone, if:
- You intend harm, and
- You know the difference between right and wrong.
Answer B does that.
- This tells us a necessary condition for an action being wrong. We need something that is sufficient to tell us an action is wrong.
- CORRECT. Here we go. The kid did understand the difference between right and wrong. So if he intended to hurt the second child then his action was wrong.
- We’re trying to prove that the action was wrong….we don’t know if it is yet. This answer talks about actions we already know are wrong.
- This sets the bar too low. The stimulus didn’t say the act would be wrong if the child “didn’t think” about whether the act would injure the other child. It said the act had to be actually intended to harm.
- The child did understand the difference between right and wrong. This is irrelevant.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly