PT133.S1.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that the first child was wrong to push the second child if she intended to hurt the second child. Why? Because the first child understands the difference between right and wrong.

The author assumes that pushing is wrong if the person who pushes understands the difference between right and wrong and intends to hurt the other person.

To help justify his argument, we need a rule or principle that satisfies this assumption and confirms that it was wrong for the first child to push the second child if she intended to hurt him.

This tells us that if a certain action is wrong then the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong. But we need a sufficient condition for an action being wrong, not a necessary condition.

The first child understands the difference between right and wrong. So (B) helps justify the conclusion that, if the first child intended to harm the second child, then she was wrong to push him.

This says that if an action is wrong then it was intended to cause harm. Instead, we need to establish that if an action was intended to cause harm, then that action is wrong. So (C) doesn’t help justify the conclusion.

This is the wrong trigger. We need to establish that an action is wrong if the person who did it understands the difference between right and wrong and intended to injure the other person. Simply not thinking about whether you’d injure the other person is too weak.

The argument is only talking about a child who does understand the difference between right and wrong. People who don’t understand the difference are irrelevant.

PrepTest 133 - Section 1 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action