Prep Test 25, June 1998
Part 2, Problem 22.
Can someone explain the answer?
Another Pattern of Reasoning problem Forum
- autarkh
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Re: Another Pattern of Reasoning problem
I'll take a stab.
There are two layers to this problem:
The first, and the one we should be most concerned about, is the argument's structure: we're given a conditional claim, followed by its contrapositive.
The second layer is the argument's main point: on the basis of the contrapositive violating common sense, we should conclude that the original statement is absurd.
Let's look at a diagram:
GS = Government Subsidy
ACA = Allowed to Create Art
Original claim:
not GS --> not ACA (Author claims this is absurd because...)
Contrapositive:
ACA --> not not GS, which is equivalent to: ACA --> GS (...it would imply this, which violates common sense)
We get this in answer choice A:
A = Arrested
BL = Break Law
! = not
!A-->!BL (Author claims this is absurd because it would imply...)
BL-->A (...which violates common sense)
All of the other answer choices do not have the same structure.
Let's look at B:
!A-->!B
A-->B (fallacy of the inverse)
C is also wrong:
SSG = Scientist Supported by Grant
S = Successful
SSG-->S
S-->SSG (fallacy of the converse)
As is D:
SSG-->S
!SSG-->!S (fallacy of the inverse)
And E:
AR = Allowed to do Research
SSG->S
AR --> !!SSG : AR --> SSG (equivocation between success and being allowed to do research)
There are two layers to this problem:
The first, and the one we should be most concerned about, is the argument's structure: we're given a conditional claim, followed by its contrapositive.
The second layer is the argument's main point: on the basis of the contrapositive violating common sense, we should conclude that the original statement is absurd.
Let's look at a diagram:
GS = Government Subsidy
ACA = Allowed to Create Art
Original claim:
not GS --> not ACA (Author claims this is absurd because...)
Contrapositive:
ACA --> not not GS, which is equivalent to: ACA --> GS (...it would imply this, which violates common sense)
We get this in answer choice A:
A = Arrested
BL = Break Law
! = not
!A-->!BL (Author claims this is absurd because it would imply...)
BL-->A (...which violates common sense)
All of the other answer choices do not have the same structure.
Let's look at B:
!A-->!B
A-->B (fallacy of the inverse)
C is also wrong:
SSG = Scientist Supported by Grant
S = Successful
SSG-->S
S-->SSG (fallacy of the converse)
As is D:
SSG-->S
!SSG-->!S (fallacy of the inverse)
And E:
AR = Allowed to do Research
SSG->S
AR --> !!SSG : AR --> SSG (equivocation between success and being allowed to do research)
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:31 pm
Re: Another Pattern of Reasoning problem
Nice! Thanks a bunch.
So the double negative "no one...without" = if...then.
So the double negative "no one...without" = if...then.
- autarkh
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Re: Another Pattern of Reasoning problem
Yep. None/no...without == if...then.gweng wrote:Nice! Thanks a bunch.
So the double negative "no one...without" = if...then.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login