LR PT 36.3 #12

[Knock]

Can someone please explain the logical reasoning of this one

Thank you.

[Mattalones]

PM it and I will.

[skip james]

I'll diagram it out for you.

Premise 1: VLaw --> VLimits

Premise 2: VLimits --> People CANNOT know whether actions are legal

So we can connect these two:

Combined Premises: VLaw --> People CANNOT know whether actions are legal

Conclusion: VLaw --> People CANNOT feel secure

_________________________________________________________

So since this is a Sufficient Assumption, and involves conditional reasoning, this question is really the type where you can prephrase an answer (and you should! it'll make your score go up!).

_________________________________________________________

How to find the Gap:

So we have this single premise (after we combine the two existing ones):

Combined Premises: VLaw --> People CANNOT know whether actions are legal

Or shortened:

V --> NOT K

And our conclusion is this:

Conclusion: VLaw --> People CANNOT feel secure

or shortened:

V --> NOT FS

In order to get from ( V --> NOT K ) to ( V --> NOT FS ), we need to connect the isolated elements from the premise and conclusion.

SO if we connected NOT K to NOT FS, we'd have our gap:

NOT K --> NOT FS

thus, if people don't know for certain whether their actions are legal THEN they can't feel secure

and the contrapositive of the gap is:

FS --> K

thus, if people feel secure THEN they do know for certain whether their actions are legal

Hope this helps.

[Knock]

Thanks very much both of you. I REALLY appreciate it!

[Mattalones]

No problem. Let me know if you have any more. That was fun.

[Knock]

No problem. Let me know if you have any more. That was fun.

I definitely will btw, nice avatar, I love Dexter!

[Mattalones]

No problem. Let me know if you have any more. That was fun.

I definitely will btw, nice avatar, I love Dexter!

Me too ... best show ever! I can't wait for season 4 to come out on DVD.