I understand how to diagram premises 1 and 2 and why overlooking the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate is a flaw, but I, for the life of me, cannot understand how the author's conclusion diagrams out to "computer scientist -> appreciate tech advancements." I interpret the conclusion as only those who appreciate advancements are computer scientists, so if you appreciate the advancements, you must be a computer scientist (appreciate advancement -> computer scientist). I don't understand how an only those statement in premise 2 would differ in diagramming from an only those statement in the conclusion. Thank you SO much in advance.
Pic of question below 
1
2 comments
I can try to help! I know you said you knew how to diagram P1 and P2, I will just write them out to help explain!
We know that "only" is a necessary condition indicator word, meaning [only computer scientists] is our necessary condition.
understand PC → CS
Again we can bracket off our necessary condition, which is [only those who understand the architecture of personal computers].
appreciate tech → understand PC
Since [those who appreciate these advances] is preceded by the word "only," we can designate this condition to be necessary.
CS → appreciate tech
That's why the flaw is a sufficient-necessary swap, because the author chains appreciate tech → understand PC → CS and then incorrectly concludes CS → appreciate tech instead of appreciate tech → CS. So between P2 and MC (and P1), the diagramming remains the same. Let me know if I can clarify!
The way I think of sentences like "Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers" is like, if you're someone who can understand the architecture, that means you're a computer scientist. Because they're the only ones capable of understanding. Similar to "Only those who are above the age of 5 can be over 5 feet tall." If someone is above 5 feet tall, they must be above the age of 5. Hope that helps