Ev1: Take SP on an issue --> likely to misinterpret or ignore additional evidence that conflicts with one's stand
Ev2: If understand an issue fully --> consider such evidence impartially
NOT consider evidence impartially --> NOT understand an issue fully
Conclusion: Take SP on an issue --> Have already considered all important evidence conflicting with that position
NOT consider all imp evidence conflicting with position --> NOT take SP on an issue
(C) says: NOT understand an issue fully --> NOT take SP on issue....the contrapositive of which is:
Take SP on issue --> understand issue fully
I feel like (C) has mistakenly reversed the contrapositive of Ev2 (has done this: NOT understand an issue fully --> NOT consider evidence impartially --> NOT take SP on an issue)...but helllooo, 'NOT understand an issue fully' is merely a necessary result clause here..that's all...we cannot say anything about what it triggers (but C does precisely that!)
If I look at the contrapositive to (C), I see how it can make sense: Take SP on issue --> understand issue fully --> consider such evidence impartially. Is that why this answer is correct?
wth, i'm so confused...it seemed crystle clear this morning, but now, I can't imagine arriving at answer choice (C). there is no way I could have prephrased this that's for sure.
any insight here (esp my concerns that I highlighted in dark blue above) would be really appreciated
thanks!EDIT: upon looking at it again, I think I realized how I arrived at it this morning. The contrapositive of the conclusion: NOT consider all imp evidence conflicting with position --> NOT understand an issue fully --> NOT take SP on an issue
but, this begs the question: how do we know that "NOT consider all imp evidence conflicting with position" = "NOT consider additional conflicting evidence impartially" ? or am i being too nitpicky...although there is a diffference btwn just considering the evid conflicting and doing so impartially. thoughts?
EDIT #2: what I mentioned in "EDIT" cannot be correct because once again, (C) tries to use a necessary result as its sufficient clause "If one does NOT understand an issue fully --> one should NOT take a SP on the issue"...but all we know (as diagrammed above) is that (C)'s sufficient clause is merely a necessary clause for NOT considering all imp evidence conflicting with the position...it does not by any means trigger it, as (C) seems to be wanting. So, back to square 1.
