i'm having a really difficult time with this one for some reason and i feel like i shouldn't be. i can't see why the answer is C and not E. can someone please explain the difference to me? i have a feeling that a flawed interpretation of the stimulus is botching things up for me.
edit: i think the stimulus is saying
Not relevant ---> avoid
which matches C i think.
and E would be:
relevant ----> raise question (don't avoid)
so picking E would be denying the antecedent and therefore erroneous right?
pt33s1#21 Forum
- 3|ink
- Posts: 7393
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm
Re: pt33s1#21
Denying the antecedent? Is that another way of saying negating the sufficient condition?HOV wrote:i'm having a really difficult time with this one for some reason and i feel like i shouldn't be. i can't see why the answer is C and not E. can someone please explain the difference to me? i have a feeling that a flawed interpretation of the stimulus is botching things up for me.
edit: i think the stimulus is saying
Not relevant ---> avoid
which matches C i think.
and E would be:
relevant ----> raise question (don't avoid)
so picking E would be denying the antecedent and therefore erroneous right?
The stimulus never leaves room for exception to the principle (first sentence). The answer choice cites an exception to the principle.
I think I see what you mean now. The first sentence is simply a statement of fact. The answer choice places the negation of that statement of fact in the necessary condition and another condition in the sufficient. I think it's easier to call this answer choice irrelevant. It could be consistent with the information above. However, it is out of scope.
I suppose the easiest way to knock out this answer choice was noticing the negated form of the first sentence in the necessary condition. When a statement of fact is alone, as it is in the stimulus, and you're asked to justify that stimulus, you're looking for a sufficient condition to strengthen that statement.