"if Blankenship Enterprises has to switch....." question. Could someone explain the wording in Answer B?
It makes no sense to me
December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26 Forum
-
boblawlob
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm
Re: December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26
Premise: Switch Supplier -> No profit
Conclusion: No Profit -> Switch Supplier
Classic Reversal
A. Not circular argument. Argument doesn't just simply restate the premise...rather it interprets it differently than it should. Wrong.
B. Based on the premise, showing "no profit" can result from switching suppliers. But there are possibly other ways that are sufficient to ensure "no profit." The conclusion basically says that if there is "no profit," then that MUST MEAN you switched supplier. This answer choice is really wordy but the phenomenon referred to is "no profit" and the condition is "switching suppliers."
C. There is no equivocation. Wrong.
D. Argument uses conditional language, not statistics nor any particular example. Wrong.
E. Conditional language used. No casual relationships involved in argument. Wrong.
Conclusion: No Profit -> Switch Supplier
Classic Reversal
A. Not circular argument. Argument doesn't just simply restate the premise...rather it interprets it differently than it should. Wrong.
B. Based on the premise, showing "no profit" can result from switching suppliers. But there are possibly other ways that are sufficient to ensure "no profit." The conclusion basically says that if there is "no profit," then that MUST MEAN you switched supplier. This answer choice is really wordy but the phenomenon referred to is "no profit" and the condition is "switching suppliers."
C. There is no equivocation. Wrong.
D. Argument uses conditional language, not statistics nor any particular example. Wrong.
E. Conditional language used. No casual relationships involved in argument. Wrong.
-
Ioannis
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:24 am
Re: December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26
that was fast... i love you.... a lot..boblawlob wrote:Premise: Switch Supplier -> No profit
Conclusion: No Profit -> Switch Supplier
Classic Reversal
A. Not circular argument. Argument doesn't just simply restate the premise...rather it interprets it differently than it should. Wrong.
B. Based on the premise, showing "no profit" can result from switching suppliers. But there are possibly other ways that are sufficient to ensure "no profit." The conclusion basically says that if there is "no profit," then that MUST MEAN you switched supplier. This answer choice is really wordy but the phenomenon referred to is "no profit" and the condition is "switching suppliers."
C. There is no equivocation. Wrong.
D. Argument uses conditional language, not statistics nor any particular example. Wrong.
E. Conditional language used. No casual relationships involved in argument. Wrong.
-
Ioannis
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:24 am
Re: December 1994, Section 2 LR Question 26
B is basically saying that the conclusion is a mistaken reversal,therefor not logically sound.boblawlob wrote:Premise: Switch Supplier -> No profit
Conclusion: No Profit -> Switch Supplier
Classic Reversal
A. Not circular argument. Argument doesn't just simply restate the premise...rather it interprets it differently than it should. Wrong.
B. Based on the premise, showing "no profit" can result from switching suppliers. But there are possibly other ways that are sufficient to ensure "no profit." The conclusion basically says that if there is "no profit," then that MUST MEAN you switched supplier. This answer choice is really wordy but the phenomenon referred to is "no profit" and the condition is "switching suppliers."
C. There is no equivocation. Wrong.
D. Argument uses conditional language, not statistics nor any particular example. Wrong.
E. Conditional language used. No casual relationships involved in argument. Wrong.
right?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
