One child pushed another child from behind, injuring the second child. The first child clearly understands the differ...

Lauren on August 21 at 11:10PM

Help!

@lsatmax can you please explain the answer

1 Reply

Irina on August 23 at 05:34PM

@Lauren-Au,

The passage presents us with a set of facts:

One child pushed another, injuring him. The first child clearly understands the difference between right and wrong, so what was done was wrong if it was intended to injure the second child.

Let's see which principle fits this fact pattern:

(A) An action that is intended to harm another person is wrong only if the person who performed the action understands the difference between right and wrong.

Incorrect. This principle is backwards, the pattern tells us the action of someone who understands the difference is wrong IF it was done intentionally, whereas (A) principle says the intentional action is wrong IF the person understands the difference. These two principles would produce different outcomes, hence (A) is a poor fit for the given set of facts.

(B) It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm the other person.

Correct. The fact pattern involves a child who understands the difference between right and wrong and concludes that the action is wrong if it is intentional. Since this principle leads to the same result - intentional action + understanding = wrong, this is the correct answer choice.

(C) Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm.

Incorrect. This principle is also backwards. The fact pattern says the act done with the intent to cause harm is wrong, whereas (C) says the act that is wrong is done with the intent of causing harm. (C) also fails to give us any rule with regard to understanding the difference between right and wrong.

(D) An act that harms another person is wrong if the person who did it understands the difference between right and wrong and did not think about whether the act would injure another person.

Incorrect. This first half of this principle parallels our fact pattern - a child that understands the difference between right and wrong, but the second half "did not think about whether the act would injure another person" is not the same as "if the act was intended to injure." This is essentially the difference between battery and negligence in tort law, the action done with intent to injure is a more grievous offense rather than an action done with disregard for other's safety.

(E) A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person.

Incorrect. This principle is inapplicable to the fact pattern because the child in this hypothetical actually does understand the difference between right and wrong.

Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any further questions.