Self-study
Since it is Sawyer who is negotiating for the city government, it must be true that the city takes the matter seriously. After all, if Sawyer had not been available, the city would have insisted that the negotiations be deferred.
I cannot figure out how to translate this to lawgic in a way that makes it a valid argument. It feels valid and seems valid, even if its maybe not super strong, but seems valid nonetheless.
I tried
/(Sawyer available) -> city defers negotiations
Sawyer is negotiating
???
------------------------
city takes the matter seriously
1
4 comments
I did this question today. I think the passage mistook sufficient for necessary if I remember right. The parallel flaw did the same thing, assumed sufficient was necessary.
This has four separate ideas, not two.
Sawyer negotiating
City takes matter seriously
Sawyer is available
City insisting negotiations deferred
???
Sawyer can be available and not negotiating. The city could be taking the matter seriously while also requesting deferral. It hasn't said those things can't happen.
The one thing you could say is that if the city did not insist, then Sawyer was available. They didn't claim that, they introduced Sawyer negotiating (I suppose he must be available then) and the city taking it seriously. I have no idea what proves the city is taking it seriously.
@Karl!
Yeah this was one of the wrong answers on the question, but I was unable to parse it easily, which led to me not being able to rule it out easily. Trying to get it to be second nature to parse and rule out and move on. Went to sleep trying to diagram in my head lol This helps a bit
@danjpeach96 theyre trying to pull this off:
P1. Sawyer is negotiating
P2. If Sawyer wasn’t available, city would have deferred.
Conclusion: city is serious
It’s nonsense so we can’t make it make sense (how can we ever know the city is or is not serious?).
that’d be how I write out the structure, though. The first sentence includes a premise AND the conclusion. Were you trying to combine them into a conditional?
@Karl! Not really. I knew that one half was the premise and the other half was the conclusion. I was just like, "How are they tying this together?"
I guess it was a wrong answer in more than one way. It's just simply not a valid argument at all, so it can't even be close to the right answer as the wrong answer in a parallel or analogy type question.