Question #1034

Did I map this correctly to arrive at the correct response?

Started by Shirnel · started 2020-03-09 00:05 · last activity 2020-03-17 22:13 · 5 replies

Can you please let me know whether I mapped this correctly to arrive at the correct response? Intolerable Economic Inequities ---> Redistributes Wealth Not Redistribute Wealth ---> Not Intolerable Economic Inequities Intolerable Economic Inequities ---> violence to coerce social reform Not violence to coerce social reform ---> Not Intolerable Economic Inequities Nations Responsibility ---> not violence to coerce social reform Violence to coerce social reform ---> Not Nations Responsibility Valid contrapositive transitive argument: Not Redistribute Wealth ---> Not Intolerable Economic Inequities Inequities ---> violence to coerce social reform ---> Not Nations Responsibility Valid Transitive Argument: Nations Responsibility ---> not violence to coerce social reform---> Intolerable Economic Inequities ---> Redistributes Wealth

Replies

  1. SamA · 2020-03-09 14:36

    Hello @Shirnel, I do see a couple of mistakes here, but for the most part your conditional reasoning is sound. Let's start with the first "unless" statement. It should look like this: not unable to alleviate OR not intolerable inequities - - - - - - -> redistribute not redistribute - - - - - - > unable to alleviate & intolerable inequities It seems like you forgot to do a negation here. Remember that "unless" introduces the necessary condition, and you negate the other condition which becomes sufficient. I noticed you did not include the compound statement that I did. I don't think that is necessarily a problem, as you might be including both terms under the "Intolerable Economic Inequities" umbrella. For this question it doesn't matter, but for other questions it might. Just make sure you know how to make the contrapositive of a compound statement. Everything else looks good, but I'll include my edit in your final transitive argument: Responsible - -> no violent reform - -> no intolerable inequity - -> redistribution If you correctly chose B, then maybe you understood the logic even if you made a small diagramming mistake. If not, make sure that you are comfortable with "unless" statements, because you are going to see a lot of them.

  2. Shirnel · 2020-03-10 04:58

    Ahh, I see. When you say compound you mean and/or statements, right? Thanks got reminded me about unless. I know that unless and without introduces necessary and we negate the sufficient. Are there any others alike this rule?

  3. SamA · 2020-03-10 18:27

    @Shirnel, yes I was referring to and/or statements. Yes there are other rules for the various sufficient/necessary indicators. If you go to the sufficient/necessary lesson, Mehran goes over the most common indicators in detail. Under the video, you should be able to click on the term you want to learn about and it will jump to that section of the video. Good luck!

  4. Shirnel · 2020-03-10 23:06

    Him, good tip. I took lots of notes on the lesson (putting it into practice is when I really learn). But I will watch it again after I complete this section and use the clicking feature. I never noticed it.

  5. AndreaK · 2020-03-17 22:13

    @Shirnel, Glad you're getting it! Feel free to let us know if you have anymore questions about this.

Sign in to reply.