Q11 - A person who knowingly brings about

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Inference

Stimulus Breakdown:
P1: If you knowingly hurt someone, you should be blamed.
P2: If unknowingly and unforeseeably cause harm, you should not be blamed.

Answer Anticipation:
Once I have the two principles down, I hop right into the answers. I ignored the second statement because it's too weak to support an answer ("some cases"), and I get a specific implementation of that in the principle from the last sentence.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This answer relies on P2 (should not be blamed). Since the answer states that it was foreseeable ("would have realized"), this doesn't align with that principle.

(B) This answer relies on P2 (should not be blamed). It also states that O had "no idea" (i.e., unknowingly) and could not have reasonably foreseen the harm. This follows the principle, so it's the answer.

(C) This answer relies on P1 (should be blamed). However, the answer does not state it was done knowingly ("had no reason to think"), so the situation doesn't follow the answer. It tries to trap you with "was concerned it might", but that doesn't hit the level of knowingly bringing about misfortune.

(D) This conclusion is weird but, if anything, it aligns with P1 (should be blamed). For that principle, the harm has to be knowingly caused, and this answer explicitly states the Doc didn't know. That said, the conclusion doesn't really say the Doc should be blamed; just that no other person should be.

(E) This answer relies on P1 (should be blamed). The harm is intentional in that principle, and this answer places blame on K even if she didn't knowingly cause the fire, which doesn't align.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Clearly defining the principles up front (and focusing on conclusions that align with the necessary condition) is the key to quickly getting these right.

#officialexplanation

[Natalie02K708]

The word "for example" makes me fee like what is following the "for example" is one possible reason to not blame someone for bring up misfortune unwittingly-- unforeseen. I was wondering if unforeseen is only a possible reason for not blame others, anything that satisfy the condition of " unwitting bring up misfortune" would be fine no matter whether it satisfy with the condition-- unforeseen.
That is why I was lingering between A and B because both of them satisfy unwitting bring up condition.
Can anyone help me out with this?

[Emmeline Ndongue]

The word "for example" makes me fee like what is following the "for example" is one possible reason to not blame someone for bring up misfortune unwittingly-- unforeseen. I was wondering if unforeseen is only a possible reason for not blame others, anything that satisfy the condition of " unwitting bring up misfortune" would be fine no matter whether it satisfy with the condition-- unforeseen.
That is why I was lingering between A and B because both of them satisfy unwitting bring up condition.
Can anyone help me out with this?

(A) is about "he should not be blamed for it", we should look at the second stmt of matt's post. "Although he would have realized it if he had thought about it, it did not occur to Riley that parking his car in the center lane of Main Street could lead to a traffic accident", this part shows that Riley could have reasonably foreseen it. We don't know whether one should be blamed for misfortune if one could reasonably foreseen it, and thus we couldn't conclude that one shouldn't be blamed for it