PT 59, LR sect 3, #22, Obligations Forum

[freddie]

The first part of the correct answer (d), about sufficient and necessary conditions makes sense to me. I am stuck on the last part of the answer: any obligation to perform an action is a legal obligation.

I would really appreciate it if someone could point out where the latter portion of the answer comes from in the stimulus.

Eternally grateful, Freddie

[scuzle]

I got stuck on this as well. I think it is saying that we do not have enough information gauge whether or not it can be a legal obligation. Its making a logical leap without qualifying it before. Perhaps if the argument had said "any obligation is necessarily a legal obligation it would hold, but law is just interjected at the end with no relevance in any of the premises.

[d34d9823]

I got stuck on this as well. I think it is saying that we do not have enough information gauge whether or not it can be a legal obligation. Its making a logical leap without qualifying it before. Perhaps if the argument had said "any obligation is necessarily a legal obligation it would hold, but law is just interjected at the end with no relevance in any of the premises.

This is correct, but seems a bit confusing to me.

The reason for the second part of the answer is that even granting the necc/suff flaw in the first step of the argument, the second step inserts "legal obligation" where only "obligation" is implied by the argument. In addition to being poor reasoning, it's patently false; there are many obligations that are not legal obligations.

[freddie]

Thanks for the explanations. I am still not grasping it. Since the start of the premise refers to 'any' obligation and 'any' agreement, wouldn't a legal obligation fall under this category? I thought the end of the stimulus, in refering to legal obligations, was giving a specific example for the general statements made at the start of the stimulus...If this is the case, then the stimulus is not saying that any obligation is legal, but that legal obligations are a type of obligation, that follow the rules that govern all obligations.

Where am I going wrong in interpreting the stimulus?

Thanks again!

[d34d9823]

Thanks for the explanations. I am still not grasping it. Since the start of the premise refers to 'any' obligation and 'any' agreement, wouldn't a legal obligation fall under this category? I thought the end of the stimulus, in refering to legal obligations, was giving a specific example for the general statements made at the start of the stimulus...If this is the case, then the stimulus is not saying that any obligation is legal, but that legal obligations are a type of obligation, that follow the rules that govern all obligations.

Where am I going wrong in interpreting the stimulus?

Thanks again!

It actually is.

[freddie]

Care to elaborate?

[Saltqjibo]

Yeah. I got this one right but only on the "best answer" principle. All the other were pretty far off. I actually don't think the second half of the answer is accurate at all - unless I'm missing something. Rather none of the other answers contained anything "correct". Still wasted way too much time second guessing myself after I had definitively crossed off all the others.

[PlugInBaby]

The first half of the answer is what i prephrased....but the second half didn't jive with me at all. I spent 3 or 4 minutes on that one....but eventually and fortunately settled for D since the others ones didn't seem close.

[freddie]

Glad to hear that I am not the only one who sees the illogicality of that answer!