Question #1029

A few questions

Started by sharpen7 · started 2018-03-08 19:02 · last activity 2019-09-24 19:37 · 2 replies

1. Why did Mehran ignore the indicator word always? He used context instead I believe. When do I know to follow context or indicator words? 2. How did Mehran get the valid contrapositive for the stimulus for not EDW -> not EDPP? I have never seen the conclusions letters used to make a contrapositive. This is the first time....why am I continuing to see new ways of writing the contrapositive? Maybe Mehran can give a lesson just on the transitive and contrapositive and the different ways to get them. 3. For the answer E's diagram why did Mehran do RE->ATL? I did it the reverse because the indicator word for necessary "essential" is before "to regular exercise," which is why I put RE in the necessary? Thanks!

Replies

  1. Mehran · 2018-03-15 21:06

    @sharpen7 please make sure you are reading the other threads as your questions here have already been asked and answered. Let's break down the argument in the stimulus first: Principle #1: "Wealth is the basis of political power." PP ==> W not W ==> not PP Principle #2: "True democracy depends on the equal distribution of political power among all citizens." TD ==> EDPP not EDPP ==> not TD Conclusion: "Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy." not EDW (i.e. not equal distribution of wealth) ==> not TD This is a valid contrapositive transitive argument. If wealth is the basis of political power and we have large inequalities in wealth, then it follows that we do not have an equal distribution of political power among all citizens. Not having an equal distribution of political power among all citizens is sufficient for not having a true democracy. not EDW ==> not EDPP ==> not TD Now let's take a look at answer choice (E): Principle #1: "Good health depends on regular moderate exercise." GH ==> RE not RE ==> not GH Principle #2: "Adequate leisure time is essential to regular exercise." RE ==> ALT not ALT ==> not RE Conclusion: "Repeated encroachments on one's leisure time by a demanding job interfere with the requirements of good health." not ATL ==> not GH This is also a valid contrapositive transitive argument. We know that repeated encroachments on one's leisure time by a demanding job means that we do not have adequate leisure time, which is required for regular exercise, which in turn is required for good heath. not ATL ==> not RE ==> not GH Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

  2. bb427 · 2019-09-24 19:37

    Does the phrase "is the basis of" always introduce a necessary condition? What happens if you diagram it if wealthy, then political power w ---> pp ? if wealthy, then political power. Please help me refer to where I can see this in either the video or the literature. Thanks

Sign in to reply.