Q8 - Toddlers are not being malicious

[skapur777]

I am confused by both the question stem and one of the answer choices.

"The situation as described above most closely conforms to which one of the following generalizations?"

Are they asking for a principle here? If so...I still don't see how A is correct.

Luckily I got this correct but maybe it's because of the question stem but why couldn't C be correct. Because they may still be malicious yet think it is acceptable behavior by adults?

[geverett]

This is a great question.

The question stem is asking for a "generalization". It seems that generalization and principle are interchangeable terms from a google search I just did. If that is the case then this explanation might make sense to you.

Okay first we are given a conclusion in the form of a conditional statement that I will rephrase for the purposes of clarity:

When toddlers bite people they are not being malicious.

Toddler bites someone ----------> ~malicious

In the premise we are then given an example of a toddler biting someone because that person has a toy and they are preventing him or her from having it. (How this does not qualify as malicious I am not quite sure, but in every instance we just take what the author of the stimulus gives us and go with it.)

Alright so the question asks for a "general" situation that would cover the example we've been given in the last sentence. It's basically saying "alright I've given you this example of a toddler biting someone that is preventing them from having a toy, and now I want you to give me kind of an umbrella statement that would cover the example given."

I do believe that this can also be thought of as a principle question, but it's just not being used in the typical way you see principle questions being used on the LSAT where there is some kind of strong conditional logic statement cited that deals with a question of morality/good/bad behavior and you are asked to find an example of something that conforms or violates the principle or vice versa.

Onto the answer choices:

(A) This is correct. If the trigger that causes them to bite is to obtain a toy that he/she is being prevented from obtaining then it is safe to assume that this is the same as "solving a problem." Think of the connection between the generalization and the example cited in the stimulus in this way: If I were to say in front of a classroom full of people "Biting people is sometimes a way for toddlers to try to solve problems." and then were to proceed to say "Can somebody give me a specific example where you have seen this take place?" and then a student cites the example listed in the stimulus of a toddler they knew that bit someone in the hope of obtaining a toy they were being prevented from obtaining. Would you agree that his example falls into the purview of the generalization or principle that I cited? The answer is that of course it does so just think of the generalizations/principles as somewhat broad sweeping statements and the examples as ways of making those principles/generalizations concrete/more specific.

(B) The key here is "to get attention from adults." We are told that they are biting, because they are prevented from getting a toy and we cannot infer from that that they are trying to get attention.

(C) Once again we are told they bite because they are being prevented from obtaining a toy and we cannot infer from that that they mistakenly believe their behavior is viewed as acceptable by adults. We have no other information except that sometimes they bite b/c they are being prevented from obtaining a toy.

(D) This could be true, but it does not apply to the example cited above that "they bite because they are being prevented from obtaining a toy."

(E) We do not know this because we do not know if they ever obtain the toy through biting or if in every instance they are sent to bed early and do not obtain their goal of obtaining the toy.

[cobyerez79]

I don't understand why c is wrong.
If toddlers see biting as acceptable behavior, that would explain why it is not malicious. Would that not be a better generalization than saying that biting is trying to solve problems? Solving problems doesn't mean that the intention is not malicious, but I would think that "acceptable behavior" would be expected to be something not malicious.

[hychu3]

Hi,

I think this problem is troubling because every generalization, by definition, involves some leap in reasoning.

I believe (C) is incorrect because its generalization assumes something unwarranted.

Namely, it ignores the possibility the child simply does not care about the adult he or she feels is preventing him or her from having the toy.

Sure, the child does not have malicious intent toward the adult, but that doesn't mean he or she has to have benevolent or any intent toward that adult.

Does the child necessarily care about what adults view biting as? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[WaltGrace1983]

I don't understand why c is wrong.
If toddlers see biting as acceptable behavior, that would explain why it is not malicious. Would that not be a better generalization than saying that biting is trying to solve problems? Solving problems doesn't mean that the intention is not malicious, but I would think that "acceptable behavior" would be expected to be something not malicious.

So you are saying that...

Acceptable → ~Malicious
Malicious → ~Acceptable

However, I would argue that this is indeed still too large of a jump. Just because something is acceptable does not necessarily mean it is ~malicious. War is acceptable in some situations (at least the American govt./people seem to think so sometimes) does that mean that war is not malicious?"

War → Acceptable
Acceptable → ~Malicious

War → ~Malicious?

Acceptable is just not really relevant in this case. The child is not biting because the child thinks that it is acceptable; at least, we don't believe he/she is and we have nothing to say otherwise. The child is biting because the child has a problem and wants to fix it. The problem is that somebody is "preventing him or her from having [the toy]." The solution is "biting."

[aznriceboi17]

Sure, you could argue that acceptable behavior doesn't imply non-malicious intent. However, I don't see why that argument is more feasible than the claim that trying to solve a problem doesn't imply non-malicious intent (as cobyerez79 points out, what if the infant's problem is 'Wow I really don't like this person and so I need to inflict some pain on him.').

It seems to me that to answer this question correctly you need to make the same evaluation that the test-makers did of these two arguments -- something that seems somewhat subjective to me.

[christine.defenbaugh]

There is some awesome analysis going on in this thread! I love to see so many people weighing in on a sticky question!

This question is essentially all about intent. And you should get comfortable with that idea, since you're all going to be spending an inordinate amount of time talking about intent in your first year CrimLaw class!

First, let's address the question type: this is a question stem wording we haven't seen much recently, but geverett has the right of it in thinking of this as essentially a Principle-support question. Principle-support questions at their heart, though, are just strengthening questions in more generalized language. And that makes sense for our task here - we want an answer that addresses the gap in logic, but we don't need it to necessarily make the argument air tight (sufficient assumption), and we aren't limited to only those things that absolutely must be true for the argument to work (necessary assumption).

So, on to the core:

PREMISE: toddlers may bite people preventing them from having a toy
CONCLUSION: toddlers are not being malicious when they bite

The very definition of malicious is bad intent! By concluding that toddlers don't have a bad intent in biting, the author is assuming that the example shows some other intent than a bad one. This is where (A) leaps to the rescue: if biting is a way to try to solve problems, that's intent! And it matches out example of toddlers biting to get access to a toy. Essentially, this suggests that toddlers aren't biting for the purpose of being mean (malicious), but rather for the purpose of solving a problem (getting the toy).

This may not be enough to validly rule out the possibility of malicious intent entirely (maybe the toddlers have both intentions? Maybe some have one and some have the other?), but we aren't looking for a sufficient assumption to make the argument air tight. All we need is a strengthener, an this strengthens the idea that toddlers aren't malicious by providing a possible alternative intent that is at least sometimes present.

Let's break down why the other answers don't fulfill our needs here:
(B) This also offers an alternate intent (getting attention), but this doesn't match our example! These toddlers are biting to get a toy, not attention.

(C) The discussion above about malicious vs acceptable nails it - these ideas feel related, but they aren't. Maliciousness is all about intent, while acceptability is about other people's reactions, or the results of an action. On Mars, perhaps Martians find it acceptable to stab a neighbor in the eye to make him suffer if he steals your parking spot. The fact that the culture would find it acceptable in no way changes the malicious intent of the action.

(D)How practically effective biting is as a problem solving strategy, and whether toddlers realize it, has no bearing on what the toddler's intent is.

(E) Like (C), this shifts from looking at the intent to the result. Whether biting is effective or not has no bearing on what the toddler's original intent was.


I hope this helps clear up a few sticky points on a difficult question with an unusual question stem!