Answer choice D

Thanks for your question. Let's diagram the stimulus. "If you know a lot about history, it will be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals." PR1: KAH ==> EIPI not EIPI ==> not KAH "But unfortunately, you will not know much about history if you have not, for example, read a large number of history books." PR2: not RLNHB ==> not KAH KAH ==> RLNHB "Therefore, if you are not well versed in history due to a lack of reading, it will not be easy for you to impress people who are intellectuals." C: not RLNHB ==> not EIPI EIPI ==> RLNHB The flaw is that the argument is taking "not RLNHB," to conclude "not EIPI." We know from the second principle rule that "not RLNHB" will lead to "not KAH." However, we cannot conclude the existence of "not EIPI" from "not KAH," because "not KAH" is the necessary condition of the second principle rule. We can never infer anything else from a necessary condition (remember don't just reverse!). Answer choice (D) illustrates this flaw. Knowing a lot about history is a sure-fire way to easily impress intellectuals. But this leaves open the possibility that there are other ways to easily impress intellectuals. We know that if you are not well read in history books, then you do not know a lot about history. But, again, we cannot surmise from this that we, therefore, cannot easily impress intellectuals. Thus, answer choice (D), which states "there are other easy ways to impress intellectuals that do not involve knowing history," correctly identifies the flaw. Hope that helped! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

I'm trying to understand why you diagrammed the second Premise the way you did: "But unfortunately, you will not know much about history if you have not, for example, read a large number of history books." PR2: not RLNHB ==> not KAH KAH ==> RLNHB I had mine reversed as in: If you don't know much about history then you have not read a large number of history books.

Hey maybe I can help Philippa, I believe this is because the indicator 'if' which indicates a sufficient, which then means the rest of the premise would be the necessary condition.

That is correct; the indicator 'if' indicates a sufficient condition, which makes the other half the necessary condition. @philidjel, does this makes sense? In your translation, you had the sufficient and necessary conditions reversed. Make sure you pay special attention to words like 'if,' as they provide key clues into whether what follows is a sufficient or necessary condition. I suggest reviewing the Sufficient and Necessary Conditions video in the curriculum, as well as practicing translating conditional statements in your drilling.