Subscription pricing
I am still confused why the conclusion is adequate productivity --> high- tech technology. I negated the high tech technology part because of the "not" present in the sentence. I tried reviewing my notes and I can't find where he explains in the negation of conditional logic that this is viable.
0
3 comments
The stim only has three sentences, which is nice. Even nicer, the first sentence simply defines what the term productivity means. So we are left with only two sentences. A premise and a conclusion. The premise uses “without” so we negate one side and make it sufficient (HP --> ATW). In English: If we do have high productivity, then we must have adequately trained workers. But the conclusion states: “So high productivity does not depend on having high-tech equipment.” Well, I asked myself…why not? What if the training needs computers? What if training involves a hi-tech simulator? Based on the one simple premise that HP needs ATW does not tell us anything about other possible requirements. The argument definitely ac(B): ignores the possibility that having high-tech equipment is required for adequate training of workers. The conclusion actually says: “It is not the case that HP requires HiTech”, but offers no support to arrive there.
sorry it should be pt 39 s2 q20
Is this LR or LG?