Top Law Schools

This is a post on facebook - tried to analyze it and find the flaw, what do you think?

"People say that if you don't vote you cannot complain. However, not voting indirectly affects the outcome, whereas if you vote for the winning party you directly affected the outcome. So, both decisions affect the result. Thus, if you vote for the winning party, you have no right to complain."

incorrectly assumes those who directly and indirectly effected the outcome of an event have the same rights relating to that event

It actually doesnt assume that ,it does mention that both affect the result.Wow,one of the major flaws necessary and sufficient flaw,incorrect negation,if u dont vote u cannot complain,if u vote for the winning party u cannot complain,Not V-Not C,V-Not C,does this remind u of nec and sufficient flaw?

People say ~you vote --> ~you complain
However, ~you vote --> indirectly affects outcome
Whereas you vote & for winning party --> directly affects outcome
So, ~you vote & (you vote & for winning party) --> (indirectly | directly) affects outcome (result)
Thus, you vote & winning party --> ~right to complain

is there a flaw? idk it sounds pretty good to me.

obviously there are some assumptions but you know, whatever.

Idk. It seems the main assumption is "If you affect the result, then you have no right to complain." I don't think a lot of people would agree with that.

loomstate wrote:This is a post on facebook - tried to analyze it and find the flaw, what do you think?

"People say that if you don't vote you cannot complain. However, not voting indirectly affects the outcome, whereas if you vote for the winning party you directly affected the outcome. So, both decisions affect the result. Thus, if you vote for the winning party, you have no right to complain."

Regardless of any other flaws, you're assuming that people aren't idiots (going from a premise that people believe something to be true to concluding that something is true). In my experience, that's a bad assumption.

The author is making the assumption that your right to complain is based on whether your action/inaction affected the outcome of the election. That's where I think the flaw is.

When people say "if you don't vote, you can't complain", I think the sentiment they're expressing is more along the lines of "if you can't be bothered to participate, then you have no right to complain.

ScottRiqui wrote:The author is making the assumption that your right to complain is based on whether your action/inaction affected the outcome of the election. That's where I think the flaw is.

When people say "if you don't vote, you can't complain", I think the sentiment they're expressing is more along the lines of "if you can't be bothered to participate, then you have no right to complain.

this

GUys all u have to do is to look at the premises and conclusion,mismatch,it says either way indirectly or directly influencingaffect the result,but then the conclusion repeats the premise before and negates that premise in a wrong way,it is nec and suff flaw,also it has as mentioned before people say,but actually it doesnt conclude that it is true it negates that premise in a wrong way.

natashka85 wrote:GUys all u have to do is to look at the premises and conclusion,mismatch,it says either way indirectly or directly influencingaffect the result,but then the conclusion repeats the premise before and negates that premise in a wrong way,it is nec and suff flaw,also it has as mentioned before people say,but actually it doesnt conclude that it is true it negates that premise in a wrong way.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

3 weeks before the test ,u guys don`t see the flaw,its serious,everyone up posted need to go over the flaw and prepare more seriously.

natashka85 wrote:3 weeks before the test ,u guys don`t see the flaw,its serious,everyone up posted need to go over the flaw and prepare more seriously.

the flaw is that he thinks anyone gives a fuck about what he says

It's so litered with flaws that we have problem with just thinking of one, especially considering that flaws in the logic on the lsat are easier to condense and much more obviously constructed; whereas this guy is all over the place.