3 comments

  • Sunday, May 27 2018

    Never mind. Looks like you're right. Thanks!

    0
  • Sunday, May 27 2018

    deleted

    0
  • Sunday, May 27 2018

    Sorry, the “#help” is a feature for comments in the lessons. Putting the “#” sign in the beginning of your post makes the font size really big on the Forum (This is because you can use Markdown in your post.) :sweat_smile:

    That being said, this question is testing a simple sufficiency/necessity confusion error.

    A (switch suppliers)→ B (no profit)

    B (no profit)→ A (switch suppliers)

    But I get that (B) is confusing. I think (B) correctly points out the flaw by saying:

    The argument didn't show that a condition [= A (switch suppliers) ] under which a phenomenon [=B (no profit)] is said to occur is the only condition under which the phenomenon occurs, which means....

    The argument did not establish that

    the only condition under which the phenomenon [=B (no profit)] occurs is the condition A (switch suppliers).

    = the phenomenon B happens only when the condition A occurs.

    If A is the only condition under which a phenomenon (B) is said to occur, then that means B → A (A ↔︎ B ).

    I know that you are asking, "Wait, but "the only" introduces sufficient conditions, right?" And you are right. I think "the only condition under which the phenomenon [=B (no profit)] occurs is the condition A (switch suppliers)" can be translated as:

    The only condition that makes B happen is the condition A. (B → A)

    The only time the phenomenon B occurs is under the condition A. (B → A)

    0

Confirm action

Are you sure?