Top Law Schools

This is a Justify/Sufficient Assumption question which involves conditional reasoning. I'm having trouble diagramming the stimulus, especially the 3rd and 4th sentences.

1: A --> B
2: B --> C
3: ? (should a variable be assigned to this sentence?)
4/Conc: ? --> ? (the conclusion seems like it using the information from C as the sufficient and necessary condition)

vamos wrote:This is a Justify/Sufficient Assumption question which involves conditional reasoning. I'm having trouble diagramming the stimulus, especially the 3rd and 4th sentences.

1: A --> B
2: B --> C
3: ? (should a variable be assigned to this sentence?)
4/Conc: ? --> ? (the conclusion seems like it using the information from C as the sufficient and necessary condition)

It's not quite what you're doing here because you didn't tell us what you're calling A and B, etc. I'll try to diagram out how I'm seeing it.

1/2: OldPartsDifficult --> NewSirens --> EnhancedSafety
3/4: SupplierOutOfBusiness --> EnhancedSafety

I think it's easiest to think of sentences 1 & 2 as the premises and sentences 3 & 4 as the conclusion. Although 3 is really a premise, it's not attached to anything, so I'm attaching it as a sufficient condition for the conclusion that safety will in fact be enhanced.

So, knowing that OPD --> NS --> ES, what assumptions would allow us to conclude that SOOB --> ES?

So the correct answer would be SOOB --> OPD.

I found this problem difficult to diagram, but I think with more practice I should be fine. Thanks again EarlCat.

vamos wrote:So the correct answer would be SOOB --> OPD.

I found this problem difficult to diagram, but I think with more practice I should be fine. Thanks again EarlCat.

No problem. SOOB --> NS could also be a correct answer.