I don't know if I am have been staring at LR questions for too long, but this question is driving me crazy. I understand the flaw now, but when I was taking the test, I diagrammed the question backwards. There doesn't seem to be any clear indication to me that economic theories being sound and successful program implementation are the sufficient conditions. I feel like I could read it both ways as an "If, then" statement. Any one have any insight into this question.
Oh, and good luck to all the saturday test takers, can't wait for it to be over with!
PT. 66 (June 2012) Sec. 2 Q. 24 Forum
-
boblawlob
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm
Re: PT. 66 (June 2012) Sec. 2 Q. 24
Had X happened, then Y would've happened.
Wouldn't that mean that If X happened, then Y would've happened?
Think about if one of your friends said this: Dude man, had you been at the bar last night, you would've seen the fight.
That doesn't mean if you saw the fight, you were at the bar. You might've seen the fight on Youtube.
Hope that helps?
Wouldn't that mean that If X happened, then Y would've happened?
Think about if one of your friends said this: Dude man, had you been at the bar last night, you would've seen the fight.
That doesn't mean if you saw the fight, you were at the bar. You might've seen the fight on Youtube.
Hope that helps?
-
ncc5
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:24 pm
Re: PT. 66 (June 2012) Sec. 2 Q. 24
X+Y=Z, No Z, so no X.
Abstractly, that's what the argument is saying. You want to see something that says there are two factors that make something happen, that something didn't happen, so that means a specific one of the factors wasn't present. It's a flaw because there isn't enough information to say which one didn't happen.
For the argument in the stimulus, the economic theories might have been fine, it could have been that the party couldn't implement it in the right way. There isn't a way of knowing which given the information. This is exactly the same situation as C.
Abstractly, that's what the argument is saying. You want to see something that says there are two factors that make something happen, that something didn't happen, so that means a specific one of the factors wasn't present. It's a flaw because there isn't enough information to say which one didn't happen.
For the argument in the stimulus, the economic theories might have been fine, it could have been that the party couldn't implement it in the right way. There isn't a way of knowing which given the information. This is exactly the same situation as C.
