Self-study
Support A movie studio's script readers discard all proposed scripts that are not submitted by agents, and Support they discard all scripts that are incorrectly formatted. ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ████████
Use Formal Logic
If thinking about this question in English is easier for you than using formal logic, you need more practice gaining fluency in formal logic. Think of English and formal logic as two closely-related tools, like a hand screwdriver and a power screwdriver. While it’s true that any job you can complete with one you could also complete with the other, they each have niche uses in which they excel. If you find yourself tackling a line of 100 wood screws with a hand screwdriver, you need to get better with the power screwdriver.
Diagramming The Flaw
This argument denies the sufficient condition. Behold:
Premise: If a script isn’t submitted by an agent, or if it isn’t formatted properly, the studio will discard it.
________
Conclusion: If a script is submitted by an agent and it is formatted properly, the studio won’t discard it.
Recognizing the broad-strokes common flaw – confusing sufficiency for necessity – is quite doable without a diagram. But the additional layers of complexity – namely the two independently sufficient conditions and the this and that conclusion – give us reason to diagram the argument anyway. A little investment up front saves a lot of time evaluating the answers.
Let’s start with premises 1 and 2:
Premise 1 : /Agent → Discard
Premise 2 : /Formatted → Discard
These each set up a condition that is sufficient by itself to make the studio discard a script. That is, if a script doesn’t come from an agent, or if it isn’t formatted correctly, either of those is enough to make the studio discard it. So it’s useful to combine them like so:
Premise 1+2: /Agent or /Formatted → Discard
Now seeing the conclusion as the inverse (an upside down version) of the combined premises is clear:
Premise 1+2: /Agent or /Formatted → Discard
________
Conclusion: Agent and Formatted → /Discard
See? Everything’s just negated across the board (including the or, which flips to and).
24.
Which one of the following ████████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
To be accepted, ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █ █████████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ █ █████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██ █████████
(A) fails because it affirms one of the conditions (✅completed entry form) but negates the other (❌submitted by deadline). I’ll flesh out the full mismatch, though. Let’s start with the first premise, which is easier to match up to the stimulus if we use the contrapositive:
Premise: Accepted → Deadline and Complete
Premise (CP): /Complete or /Deadline → /Accepted
See? That version matches up with the stimulus’ Premise 1+2 quite well.
Now the conclusion, though, which isn’t the inverse of the premise because it doesn’t negate all the terms. Mismatches are bolded:
Conclusion: Complete and /Deadline → /Accepted
(A)’s logic is actually valid, albeit a bit messy. Failing to meet the deadline suffices to tank an entry, so the conclusion follows whether the entry form is complete or not.
b
If your kitchen ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ █ ████ █████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██████████
(B) is wrong because its conclusion doesn’t negate the premise’s sufficient condition – its argument is flawed in a different way.
On your shallow dip, (B) should fail immediately because its first premise joins the two sufficient conditions with an and instead of an or:
Premise 1: Organized and Good Cook → Delicious
That’s enough, but another red flag comes when its second premise negates the necessary condition, which is the beginning of a potentially valid line of reasoning.
Premise 2: /Delicious
That’s just a bunch of mismatchy stuff up front. To trace out (B)’s actual flaw, though, here’s (B)’s actual conclusion compared to the valid one it could draw.
Conclusion: /Organized
Valid: /Organized or /Good Cook
The meal wasn’t delicious, so Jon must have failed to meet one of the conditions that would have guaranteed deliciousness. But maybe he’s organized and just sucks at cooking.
c
If Bob starts ██████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████
(C) matches the stimulus’ whole logical structure. Here it is in English:
Premise: If Bob does start exercising daily, or if he does quit smoking, his fitness level will improve.
________
Conclusion: If he doesn’t exercise daily and he doesn’t quit smoking, his fitness level won’t improve.
Here’s the formal logic:
Premise 1: Exercise → Fitness↑
Premise 2: Quit → Fitness↑
Premise 1+2: Exercise or Quit → Fitness↑
________
Conclusion: /Exercise and /Quit → /Fitness↑
(C)’s conclusion confuses sufficiency and necessity by negating the premise’s sufficient condition and concluding the necessary condition must not be true. Its conclusion is the inverse of Premise 1+2.
d
The police are ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ █ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████
(D) fails when it affirms one of our sufficient conditions. Mismatch in bold:
Premise 1+2: /Permit or Expired → Ticket
Premise 2: Expired
To match, (D) needs to negate both sufficient conditions.
e
Most dogs that ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████
Whether you’re diagramming or not, (E) should fail your shallow dip when it brings in most and some claims, which are quantifier mismatches.
Here’s the diagram just for fun:
Premise 1: Classes –most→ Basic
Premise 2: Classes –some– Advanced
________
Conclusion: Classes and Advanced → Basic
Taking (E) on its own merits, I guess it’s flawed because it assumes that if a dog can do advanced tricks, it can do basic ones. But WHATEVER – (E)’s specific flaw doesn’t matter. All that matters is it doesn’t match the stimulus.