if what is to be flushed is toilet paper and what nature provides, then flush.
Thus, since what is to be flushed is not toilet paper nor what nature provides, I will not flush.
A -> B
Not A
_______
Thus, not B.
(assumes not A->not B; B->A)
Formally the error is mistaken negation.
Can be called mistakes necessary for sufficient or sufficient for necessary.
Overlooks the possibility that there are other sufficient reasons for flushing, so you really don't know if you will flush or not, since logically, you cannot infer from A->B, Not A-> ??.
OR
if what is to be flushed is toilet paper and what nature provides, then flush.
Thus, since I will flush, it must be because what is to be flushed is is toilet paper and what nature provides,
A->B
B
______
Thus, A
(assumes B->A)
Formally the error is mistaken reversal.
Can be called mistakes sufficient for necessary or necessary for sufficient.
Overlooks the possibility that there are other sufficient reasons for flushing or other necessary conditions to flush. Again, you can't infer knowing A->B from B -> ??.
Someone check my example and make sure I got the distinction between mistakes necessary for sufficient or sufficient for necessary right?
Well, it's not an argument, so validity doesn't come into play. It's just an imperative sentence, like "open the door".
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
4 comments
@quinnxzhang542 I meant that the illustration represented an invalid argument form ;)
and @50 Yes! I love the effort you put into this!
I don't know what this means but just for kicks:
Yes!
to make it two flawed arguments:
if what is to be flushed is toilet paper and what nature provides, then flush.
Thus, since what is to be flushed is not toilet paper nor what nature provides, I will not flush.
A -> B
Not A
_______
Thus, not B.
(assumes not A->not B; B->A)
Formally the error is mistaken negation.
Can be called mistakes necessary for sufficient or sufficient for necessary.
Overlooks the possibility that there are other sufficient reasons for flushing, so you really don't know if you will flush or not, since logically, you cannot infer from A->B, Not A-> ??.
OR
if what is to be flushed is toilet paper and what nature provides, then flush.
Thus, since I will flush, it must be because what is to be flushed is is toilet paper and what nature provides,
A->B
B
______
Thus, A
(assumes B->A)
Formally the error is mistaken reversal.
Can be called mistakes sufficient for necessary or necessary for sufficient.
Overlooks the possibility that there are other sufficient reasons for flushing or other necessary conditions to flush. Again, you can't infer knowing A->B from B -> ??.
Someone check my example and make sure I got the distinction between mistakes necessary for sufficient or sufficient for necessary right?
Well, it's not an argument, so validity doesn't come into play. It's just an imperative sentence, like "open the door".