Flawed Reasoning

Hello @mprezzy, I think I can clarify that. We have the premise that no scientist appreciates poetry. S - - - - -> not AP AP - - - - > not S And another premise that most scientists are logical. S - -most - - L We can conclude that some logical people are scientists. L - - -some - - - S I want to connect our two premises to see what conclusions we can draw. L - - - -some - - - - S - - - - - - > not AP Some logical people do not appreciate poetry. This would be valid, but this is not the conclusion made in the stimulus. The author attempts to make a contrapositive of this valid conclusion. But, as expressed in the video, you cannot make a contrapositive of a qualifier statement. AP - - - - - - -> not S - - X - - -> not L The first part of this is correct, but the second half is not. It is true that appreciating poetry proves that one isn't a scientist. But not being a scientist doesn't make one illogical. To express the flaw in terms that may be easier to understand, the argument simply makes a claim about a group that we have no information about. We have some info about logical people (some are scientists) and about art appreciators (none are scientists). Do you see any premises that I diagrammed that could lead to a conclusion of not L (illogical)? There aren't any. Similarly, answer choice B gives us information about adults, but makes a conclusion about children.

That was helpful. Thank you.

@mprezzy, let us know if you have any other questions!