Postby skip james » Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:07 am
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.