Post
by sjp200 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:00 am
I don't have the stems handy but you just asked for drawing so I can help with that at least.
PT62:
You have health as a necessary condition for happiness. So you can conclude if someone has happiness, they have satisfied any and all necessary conditions. In this instance we only have 1:
Happiness-->Health
It is ALWAYS beneficial when studying to consider the contrapositive in the scope of the question stem to make sure you diagrammed correctly.
No Health-->No Happiness makes sense according to the stimulus, in fact it is there pretty much verbatim.
So now, we need a link for Money to Happiness, and we know that Happiness--->health--->/SH for money(if you are happy, you are healthy, which means you at no point, sacrificed health for happiness)
------------------------------
PT 68
Here the situation is a little different. Unenthusiastic voters implies that the sufficient conditions have not both been met, because if they were, then the stimulus says they must be unenthusiastic. I don't think drawing the reasoning is beneficial here because they are sufficient conditions.
We know this is for certain:
If people believe important issues changed by only large #'s of people changing attitudes AND those changes are not from gov't action, we can conclude those people to be unenthusiastic about voting. However, we have no idea if anything else could prompt them to be unenthusiastic. Maybe having work or just not caring in general? Unlike the question from PT62, there's no indication that we must satisfy these two conditions to obtain the result, only that the occurrence of both will trigger unenthusiastic attitude.
The only other conclusion you can draw is that any voter who is enthused, has not met both criteria (but may meet one or the other).
