Hey,
After staring at this question for 10 minutes and checking the Manhattan forum for solution, I am still uncomfortable with this question. At first I worked through the problem like a standard conditional logic question, but then I realized that this is about causation. Can you walk through this question for me?
And can you clarify the difference between the two, such as why the contrapositive don't apply in causation chains?
PT25-S4-Q12 (LR) Help! Forum
-
Clyde Frog
- Posts: 8985
- Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:27 am
Re: PT25-S4-Q12 (LR) Help!
It's a simple flaw. A->B = -A->-B.
In formal logic this is called a propositional fallacy (denying the antecedent).
An example of this would be
If it is raining (A) then the grass is wet (B).
A will trigger B
It is not raining (-A) thus the grass is not wet (-B).
Not having A doesn't mean B won't happen.
The grass could be wet for several reasons. Maybe someone just watered it with a hose or there was recently a water balloon fight, thus this argument is flawed.
In formal logic this is called a propositional fallacy (denying the antecedent).
An example of this would be
If it is raining (A) then the grass is wet (B).
A will trigger B
It is not raining (-A) thus the grass is not wet (-B).
Not having A doesn't mean B won't happen.
The grass could be wet for several reasons. Maybe someone just watered it with a hose or there was recently a water balloon fight, thus this argument is flawed.
