Dear Tutor, I am a little confused about when to move a "no" or negative indicator to the left in order to apply the "negate the necessary" rule. For example, I understand that " No Cats are Dogs can be diagrammed as such Cat-->/Dog Or Dog-->/Cat. However, what if there is a No on both sides? For example, Prep Test 111 Section 3 Question 18 Answer Choice: (B) reads "No people who understand their musical roots will be in the audience if the audience will not be treated to a good show." I almost diagrammed this by moving the "no" in the sufficient condition to the necessary condition, which would have made B correct. So, if there is a "no" or negative indicator on both sides, it is best to leave it be?
- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
Discussions
@KevinLin Actually, should I think of (A) like this:
(A) is wrong because it leaves open the possibility that they did paint animals they ate. It is an Unreasonable assumption but possible. If it were the correct answer, it would not be possible at all.
@KevinLin Ok, this helps a bit. This is my pattern of reasoning. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If painters made long journey--> (must have) eaten sea animals (speculative)
Conclusion: Rock paintings do not express the diets of painters because of conditional statement.
Answer choice A--> They ate other things besides sea animals. They could have still made the journey. Maybe they did not eat sea animals at all which is why there are no paintings.
Answer choice B--> They could have very well painted sea animals but the paintings did not survive
Answer choice C--> Can we draw a conclusion about the counter argument with this statement? Not really. This is more a of a descriptor than a reason.
Answer choice D--> If they have a technique to preserve meat, I have to assume they painted at least on of the animals they are preserving.
Answer choice E--> Rules out the possibility that the subject did not do the paintings.
The question below made me confused because I thought the conditional statement "the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands" was a fact because there is a Sufficent Condition that triggers a Necessary Condition there for it must be true. So when I learned A was wrong, I was confused because the conditional statement created a "rule." So, I need help. How do you disprove a conditional?
THE QUESTION:
Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled. The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters. This theory cannot be right, because the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands, and there are no paintings that unambiguously depict such creatures.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings EXCEPT:
A. Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.
B. Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
C. The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.
D. Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.
E. The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals
Mr. Thomas was found dead in his apartment. His girlfriend's fingerprints were found at the crime scene. His girlfriend is the only other person with a key to his apartment. There were no signs of forced entry. Therefore, the investigator has reasons to believe the girlfriend is the culprit.
I chained this as a conditional and got this: *If you are a tutor please help
Tech Improvements-->Increase Food Production as Population Increases-->Societies become more centralized
-->Greater percentage of people perish if society collapses
I chose E
This may be wrong but it was my first instinct. Please help.