Self-study
Could someone tell me how I should be reading the kind of answer choices that identify a flaw by saying the argument “confuses X for Y” or a sufficient condition for a necessary condition? When I try to use piecemeal analysis to figure out what is being confused for what - like which clause actually appears in the argument vs which clause should’ve appeared in the argument - I always get lost.
TIA
4
3 comments
Sure. Let's imagine that we have a simple flawed argument:
To win the marathon, you need to run the whole way. Sam ran the whole way. Therefore, Sam won the marathon.
The correct diagram of the initial rule would look like:
Win Marthon --> Run the Whole Way
But the argument messed it up. They think that because Sam ran the whole way, he won. They think the rule is:
Run the Whole Way --> Win Marathon
The correct answer choice would say something like:
Confuses a necessary condition for winning a marathon with a condition sufficient to win a marathon.
The term immediately after "Confuses" is the real rule. "Running the whole way" is a necessary condition for winning the marathon according to our initial rule. But the argument treated "Running the whole way" as a sufficient condition to win the marathon.
Good job distilling this problem -- it's a tough one. Generally, the actual thing comes first.
Let's say your car is actually blue, but I say "I like your red car". I am...
I can reverse the order by using non-directional phrases like "equating" or "conflating". Basically phrases that mean "treats these two different things as though they're the same thing". So like:
That's kinda fine, though, because for these phrases it doesn't matter which thing you put first, so there's no way to be wrong-because-backward.
Last pro tip -- thorny wording like this where you're tracking concepts piecemeal is prime "write things down" territory.
@MichaelWright incredible explanation. Thank you.