I know that someone (clint4law) already has a post about this particular question. However, even after reviewing the responses on that thread, I unfortunately am not 100% comfortable with this question. So I would sincerely appreciate any elaboration on the logic of the passage itself and specifically why D is the correct anwer as well as why the other answer choices are incorrect.
As I understand the passage, it gives the following two primeses and conclusion:
(S = support tax, E = have a chance of election, U = understand economics)
Premise 1. S --> not E ( = E --> not S)
Premise 2. U --> not S ( = S --> not U)
Concl. E --> U ( = not U --> not E)
The question asks about the flaw in the reasoning.
I would love to have your input on why D is the correct answer, and why A, B, E and especially C are all incorrect.
Thank you, in advance!
PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!! Forum
-
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!
I'm pretty sure the question you are referring to isn't PT 10 section 4 question 9.
-
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:43 pm
Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!
Bro what are you talking about? PT 10 Section 4 Question 9 is about the carpet markets.
- jesuis
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:56 am
Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!
ah! yes, sorry about that (wrote the post right before bed)...
it's PT 14 (section 4, question 9)
it's PT 14 (section 4, question 9)
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:19 am
Re: PT 10, Section 4, Question 9, PLEASE HELP!!!
premises
supports tax law -> no chance of being elected.
understands econ -> not support tax law
conclusion
chance of being elected -> understands econ
i don't know what you would call this error (mistaken reversal, mistaken negation) but
a. not possible according to the premise 2
b. beyond scope
c. restatement of premise 1
d. imagines a possibility where you can get elected since you do not support the tax law but do not understand econ which the premises allow for.
e. beyond scope
supports tax law -> no chance of being elected.
understands econ -> not support tax law
conclusion
chance of being elected -> understands econ
i don't know what you would call this error (mistaken reversal, mistaken negation) but
a. not possible according to the premise 2
b. beyond scope
c. restatement of premise 1
d. imagines a possibility where you can get elected since you do not support the tax law but do not understand econ which the premises allow for.
e. beyond scope
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login