Subscription pricing
Having some difficulty comprehending in lawgic terms the argument flaw. Can anyone help clarify?
0
Having some difficulty comprehending in lawgic terms the argument flaw. Can anyone help clarify?
3 comments
I'll try this:
The stimulus says: re-phrased: Sa implies Ib some TF, therefore, Sa some Tf. The correct answer is most similar this.
A: Gp some A implies I. Not the same flaw.
B:Gp implies A implies I, therefore Gp some I. I think this is a must be true. no flaw.
C: Gp implies A some I, therefore Gp some I. Same flaw as the original.
D: no flaw.
E: no flaw.
Thanks.
Abstractly, the argument is as follows:
X -> Y (-s-) Z
Therefore
X -> Z
This is wrong because we don't know how big the Y group is in comparison to the X group. Here is quick way to see why the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises:
Let's assume there are 10 Xs. From X -> Y, all those 10 go into the Ys. Now, how big is the Y? Let's say there are 100 Ys, 10 of which are Xs and 90 of which are not Xs. From Y (-s-) Z, it could be that all 90 of which are not Xs go into Z. From all that, can we claim, as the conclusion does, that all X, which means all 10 Xs, are in Z? No!
Hope this helps
S (Savings account) ---> IB (Interest-bearing account)
IB---s--- /T
Conclusion: (So is indicator word) S---s---/T (tax-free)
A---s---B---->C
C: A---s----C and C---s---A are the only two valid conclusions you can draw
you cannot combine the statements: S--->IB---s---/T to produce any valid conclusions
A.) A---> I
P---s---A
C: P----s---I Logically valid so doesn't match
B.) GP---> A-----> I (already doesn't match so eliminate)
C.) GP----> A
A---s---I (looking good so far)
C: GP---s--- I (Intellectual)
This argument is not logically sound and it also matches the flaw in the stimulus.