LR PT 36.3 #12 Forum
- Knock
- Posts: 5151
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm
LR PT 36.3 #12
Can someone please explain the logical reasoning of this one
Thank you.
Thank you.
-
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 am
Re: LR PT 36.3 #12
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.
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
- Posts: 5151
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm
Re: LR PT 36.3 #12
Thanks very much both of you. I REALLY appreciate it!
- Mattalones
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:18 pm
Re: LR PT 36.3 #12
No problem. Let me know if you have any more. That was fun.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Knock
- Posts: 5151
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm
Re: LR PT 36.3 #12
I definitely will btw, nice avatar, I love Dexter!Mattalones wrote:No problem. Let me know if you have any more. That was fun.
- Mattalones
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:18 pm
Re: LR PT 36.3 #12
Me too ... best show ever! I can't wait for season 4 to come out on DVD.Knockglock wrote:I definitely will btw, nice avatar, I love Dexter!Mattalones wrote:No problem. Let me know if you have any more. That was fun.