Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2011:00 AM EST
-11:59 PM EST
Don’t miss Target Test Prep’s biggest sale of the year! Grab 25% off any Target Test Prep GMAT plan during our Black Friday sale. Just enter the coupon code BLACKFRIDAY25 at checkout to save up to $625.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
14 Sep 2019, 08:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (01:53) correct
35%
(01:51)
wrong
based on 622
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
One child pushed another child from behind, injuring the second child. 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.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
(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.
(B) It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm another person.
(C) Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm.
(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 the other person.
(E) A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
(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.
(B) It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm another person.
(C) Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm.
(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 the other person.
(E) A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person.
14 Sep 2019, 19:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
One child pushed another child from behind, injuring the second child. 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.
WE can summarize it as
If a person intentionally harms, knowing the difference between right and wrong (A), then it is wrong (B)
If A then B means If NOT A then NOT B.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
(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.
Addition of ONLY restricts the argument, and cannot be the principle we are looking for.. The intention to harm someone itself can be wrong irrespective.
For example, If someone does not know the law and breaks a rule, say jumps a red light intentionally, it does not mean he is not wrong.
(B) It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm another person.
This is what the argument is all about.
(C) Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm.
This principle states If B then A, and is not correct.
(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 the other person.The RED coloured shows us that it was NOT intended, and goes against the argument
(E) A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person.
Nothing is being spoken on 'responsibility'. It is same as choice A.
B
WE can summarize it as
If a person intentionally harms, knowing the difference between right and wrong (A), then it is wrong (B)
If A then B means If NOT A then NOT B.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
(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.
Addition of ONLY restricts the argument, and cannot be the principle we are looking for.. The intention to harm someone itself can be wrong irrespective.
For example, If someone does not know the law and breaks a rule, say jumps a red light intentionally, it does not mean he is not wrong.
(B) It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm another person.
This is what the argument is all about.
(C) Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm.
This principle states If B then A, and is not correct.
(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 the other person.The RED coloured shows us that it was NOT intended, and goes against the argument
(E) A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person.
Nothing is being spoken on 'responsibility'. It is same as choice A.
B
General Discussion
21 Feb 2021, 15:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
One child pushed another child from behind, injuring the second child. 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.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
(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. X
It’s does not have to be true that an action that is intended to harm another is wrong ONLY IF the person who performs the action understances the difference between right and wrong. There could be other reasons why an act is morally wrong.
(B) It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm another person. CORRECT. This is an unstated assumption in the passage.
(C) Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm. X
First off, this is not even remotely true. Second, it does not strengthen anyway.
(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 the other person. X
So basically this is saying an act that harms another person is wrong if the perpetrator didn’t think about injuring the other person…This goes in the wrong direction. The conclusion states that ‘what was done was wrong ‘if it was intended to injure’. Presumably intention involves pre-meditated thought. So, it doesn’t help to suggest that the wrong-doer didn’t think about their act…
(E) A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person. X
The CONSEQUENCES are irrelevant.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
(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. X
It’s does not have to be true that an action that is intended to harm another is wrong ONLY IF the person who performs the action understances the difference between right and wrong. There could be other reasons why an act is morally wrong.
(B) It is wrong for a person who understands the difference between right and wrong to intentionally harm another person. CORRECT. This is an unstated assumption in the passage.
(C) Any act that is wrong is done with the intention of causing harm. X
First off, this is not even remotely true. Second, it does not strengthen anyway.
(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 the other person. X
So basically this is saying an act that harms another person is wrong if the perpetrator didn’t think about injuring the other person…This goes in the wrong direction. The conclusion states that ‘what was done was wrong ‘if it was intended to injure’. Presumably intention involves pre-meditated thought. So, it doesn’t help to suggest that the wrong-doer didn’t think about their act…
(E) A person who does not understand the difference between right and wrong does not bear any responsibility for harming another person. X
The CONSEQUENCES are irrelevant.
