This question had me stumped for a bit. Then I started to pick out necessary and sufficient indicators and realized the wrong ACs had issues. Then "think" is not a strong indicator, so I was left with B that made sense.
OMG through POE I got it right but I was second guessing myself but I stuck with what the chain was to avoid making assumptions outside what the stimulus stated 🕺🏽
Would it be right to eliminate answer choices that are long or short because they are either too detailed or too strict, such that the stimulus would not fit the principle, or because they over-restrict the stimulus?
To explain, the question stem already says that the child undestands the difference between right and wrong. What the rule pertains to includes that and IF he intended to injure the child. The only answer the satisfies (1) knowing right vs wrong (2) whether injury was an intentional act, is B.
Answer A doesn't satisfy because the child already understands the difference between right from wrong. Also is an action that intended to hurt someone only wrong if the person doesn't understand it??? No that doesn't make any sense.
So to confirm, based on answer C: You don't need all the facts in the stimulus to contribute to the sufficient condition for it to be correct, you just need the sufficient condition to be valid based on any number (some or all) of the facts present (assuming necessary is valid as well)?
80 comments
The correct answer jumped out to me!
Got it right in BR, tried to be quick first time
A) Doesn't mention intention
C) ANY act? So outside of acts that harm but didn't intend to it's still wrong? Maybe but that isn't what the stimulus says.
D) Avoids intention
E) Not at all what we're saying
This question had me stumped for a bit. Then I started to pick out necessary and sufficient indicators and realized the wrong ACs had issues. Then "think" is not a strong indicator, so I was left with B that made sense.
That S/N confusion always gets me!
"only if" is a NC indicator
OMG through POE I got it right but I was second guessing myself but I stuck with what the chain was to avoid making assumptions outside what the stimulus stated 🕺🏽
Can someone explain to me why A is wrong like I'm 5 years old? And then why B is the better choice?
I chose A initially but then went with B on the BR.
@JessM Option A has got the sufficient and necessary conditions reversed. The main conclusion of the stimulus is:
If it was intended to injure the second child --> then what was done was wrong
If X --> then Y.
This statement implies that if X happens then Y is guaranteed. Therefore, X is sufficient condition, and Y is the necessary condition.
A is incorrect because it is reversing the sufficient and necessary conditions.
Please pay attention to the word 'Only if'
Here is a simple example:
I will not go out today if it rains.
(Rains-->Not go out today)
I will not go out today only if it rains.
(Not go out today --> Rains)
By adding only if to the above statement, what I'm trying to convey is that for me to not go out today, it must rain.
If the main conclusion in the stimulus said:
"what was done was wrong only if it was intended to injure the second child",
then A would be the right choice.
3/3 lookin good so far just waiting for the downfall lfg!!!
yyayaya got it right! These are kind of difficult, I need to practice more on these to get quicker:)
Would it be right to eliminate answer choices that are long or short because they are either too detailed or too strict, such that the stimulus would not fit the principle, or because they over-restrict the stimulus?
W's chat.
To explain, the question stem already says that the child undestands the difference between right and wrong. What the rule pertains to includes that and IF he intended to injure the child. The only answer the satisfies (1) knowing right vs wrong (2) whether injury was an intentional act, is B.
Answer A doesn't satisfy because the child already understands the difference between right from wrong. Also is an action that intended to hurt someone only wrong if the person doesn't understand it??? No that doesn't make any sense.
Hope this helps!
Ugh I chose B first then changed my answer to A
"You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child"
Actually 7sage, I don't think I will.
These are giving me a headache
Before I even start this question, I want to acknowledge the drill title: "You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child"
You Try - Intentionally Harming a Child
I'm gonna stop you right there 7Sage
DAMN DERRICK
these are too easy chat
I convinced myself A was the right answer by completely ignoring the only and treating it as "IF". Gotta pay attention!
not me getting triggered and distracted by the content lol
You Try-- Intentionally Harming a Child
...ok if you say so
So to confirm, based on answer C: You don't need all the facts in the stimulus to contribute to the sufficient condition for it to be correct, you just need the sufficient condition to be valid based on any number (some or all) of the facts present (assuming necessary is valid as well)?
also my question!
"You Try -- Intentionally Harming a Child"
Don't encourage me man
B literally just rephrases the argument so I did not see how it justifies it
I got it correct!