Question #669

Answer A To Confirm

Started by MARIO · started 2016-03-24 14:47 · last activity 2022-10-26 00:53 · 4 replies

Answer A is flawed as well by assuming a necessary condition will bring about the sufficient correct? It's just not flawed in the same pattern as the stimulus or the correct answer because it does not conclude the existence of a sufficient condition of a premise to conclude the sufficient of another, when it in fact only provides us with a necessary condition

Replies

Mehran · 2016-03-27 22:19

@MARIO no (A) is a valid argument. The argument would be diagrammed as follows: P: "In a stone wall that is properly built, every stone supports another stone." PB ==> ESSAS not ESSAS ==> not PB P: "Since a wall's being sturdy depends upon its being properly built..." S ==> PB not PB ==> not S C: "...only walls that are composed entirely of stones supporting other stones are sturdy." S ==> ESSAS not ESSAS ==> not S This is a proper transitive inference, i.e. S ==> PB ==> ESSAS. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
anadeem321@hotmail.com · 2022-10-24 14:54

I do not understand... In P: "In a stone wall that is properly built, every stone supports another stone." "every" is a sufficient indicator therefore for the premise it will be diagrammed as follow: ESSAS ==>PB not PB==> not ESSAS afterwards P: "Since a wall's being sturdy depends upon its being properly built..." S ==> PB not PB ==> not S C: "...only walls that are composed entirely of stones supporting other stones are sturdy." S ==> ESSAS not ESSAS ==> not S This is a NOT proper transitive inference since both premises has the necessary conditions in common just like answer choice A
anadeem321@hotmail.com · 2022-10-24 14:55

Just like stimulus***
Emil-Kunkin · 2022-10-26 00:53

Hi, I think you may have the opening statement reversed. The sentence is saying that if a stone wall is built properly, then every stone supports another. This would be If PB -> Essa