Explanation Q34

Hey @spapee, The problem with (D) is that the premises in the stimulus don't preclude ANY logical conclusion. Actually, there's a perfectly fine logical conclusion we can draw with them. First premise: if understand the architecture of personal computers - > computer scientist Second premise: if appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade - > understand the architecture of personal computers And we can chain these together to get: appreciate the advances in technology - > understand the architecture of PCs - > computer scientist So we CAN conclude Appreciate advances in technology - > computer scientist But what the author does is conclude Computer scientist - > Appreciate advances in technology. Which is a classic mistaken reversal! What's one way to say this? There might be some computer scientists out there who don't appreciate advances in technology, and this is what (B) tells us. Hope this helps!

Can someone explain the difference between B and C, I chose C?

Hi @Chakera-Hightower, Thanks for the question! To recap, we know that understand PC architecture —> computer scientist appreciate advances in technology —> understand PC architecture And so (C) is technically true. (C) tells us that computer scientists might appreciate other things other than technological advances. Yes, computer scientists may appreciate other things, such as long walks on the beach or a good TV show. But this is irrelevant when it comes to the argument; there’s no flaw in the reasoning that results from (C). (B), on the other hand, points out a serious flaw in the argument, as I pointed out in the above post. The argument is a mistaken reversal, and this is what (B) points out. There could be computer scientists who don’t appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade, and so it’s not necessarily true that if someone is a computer scientist, then they have to appreciate the technological advancements. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Thanks! I have a question, and this question popped up on the premise drills as well. When finding the conclusion from the premises provided, It is required that we follow from sufficient to necessary, then that necessary becomes sufficient to necessary? Or it doesn't matter?