Need help on this question Forum

[splittermcsplit88]

If the play were successful, it would be adapted as a movie or revived at the Frodo Festival. But it is not successful. We must, regrettably, conclude that it will neither become a movie nor be revived at the Frodo Festival.

The reasoning is flawed because the argument:

Answer: fails to recognize that the play's not satisfying one sufficient condition does not preclude its satisfying a different sufficient condition for adaptation as a movie or revival at the Frodo Festival.

I'm not sure I agree with this answer because, the answer is assuming there exists a different sufficient condition. I've ingrained in my head to never make assumptions and leaps on my own on answer choices, so this is confusing.

[tdd]

The reasoning has the form "If A then B; not A; therefore not B". The fallacy is that of denying the antecedent. Just because not A, it's not necessarily the case that not B; after all, it's possible that some C is sufficient to bring about B.

The answer doesn't assume that there is a different sufficient condition C. The burden is on the person who wants to establish not B that nothing else could be sufficient for B; someone who rejects the reasoning as fallacious doesn't have the burden of establishing that there is such a C in order to correctly deem it fallacious.

Consider the following analogy: reasoning of the form "There's no evidence for D; therefore not D". The fallacy is that of concluding that D is false on the basis that there is no evidence for D. Just because there's no evidence for D, it's not necessarily the case that not D; after all, it's possible that some other evidence E is sufficient to establish D. The answer doesn't assume that there is such other evidence E. The burden is on the person who wants to establish not D that (at the least) there's no evidence that could support D; someone who rejects the reasoning as fallacious doesn't have the burden of establishing that there is such evidence in order to correctly deem it fallacious.

[thebestwes]

Exactly what TDD said. It's not an issue of assuming there exists a different sufficient condition. It's saying that the premises do not PRECLUDE a different sufficient condition, not that there IS a different sufficient condition.

The stimulus is saying that it must be false that the play will either be adapted or revived. But this could be true (it doesn't have to be, but it's a possibility). How could this be true? Because it's possible ("does not preclude") that there are other factors ("satisfying a different sufficient condition") that would lead to its adaptation or revival at the festival.

To add an example to TDD's solid analogy:

If the animal were a shark, it would be a fish. But it is not a shark. We must, regrettably, conclude that it is not a fish.

This conclusion fails to recognize that the animal's not satisfying one sufficient condition (being a shark) does not preclude its satisfying a different sufficient condition (being one of the many non-shark fish species) for being a fish.

In this situation you obviously can't say for sure that the animal IS a fish based on the information you have, but it's definitely also wrong to say it's not a fish just because it's not a shark.

Similarly, in the original question, you can't assume that the play WILL be adapted or revived (as you correctly point out), but the correct answer is only saying that it's wrong to assume that it won't be JUST because it's not successful (just like the mere fact that the animal is not a shark doesn't mean it can't be a fish). It could very well not be adapted or revived. But we just can't conclude that with 100% certainty.

Hope this is helpful.

[Judgeasaurus_Rex]

If the play were successful, it would be adapted as a movie or revived at the Frodo Festival. But it is not successful. We must, regrettably, conclude that it will neither become a movie nor be revived at the Frodo Festival.

The reasoning is flawed because the argument:

Answer: fails to recognize that the play's not satisfying one sufficient condition does not preclude its satisfying a different sufficient condition for adaptation as a movie or revival at the Frodo Festival.

I'm not sure I agree with this answer because, the answer is assuming there exists a different sufficient condition. I've ingrained in my head to never make assumptions and leaps on my own on answer choices, so this is confusing.

This is a mistaken negation, as the previous poster pointed out.

Take another example:

If someone uses steroids they must have big muscles. Arnold Schwarzenegger, does not use steroids. Therefore, Arnold Schwarzenegger does not have big muscles.

The example above would be flawed because there are other ways to have big muscles than using steroids. Regular exercise, good genetics, etc. The Powerscore bible chapter on conditional logic explains how this works far better than I can. I don't think that it is too big a leap to make the assumption that there exist multiple sufficient conditions that will trigger a given necessary condition. In fact, I think that this is an example of the type of common sense that the LSAT expects test takers to bring with them to the test.