How do you know when it’s okay to ignore a premise? Simply because it’s not conditional in a conditional situation? I was able to translate the rest of the premises but I kept trying to make dislike&respect fit into the logic and it messed me up #help

Could this not be a logical chain?

1. Deliver speech -> /pass (contrapositive = pass -> /deliver speech)

2. /deliver speech -> /assassination attempt

Pass -> /deliver speech -> /assassination attempt

3. /assassination attempt.

Therefore, the conclusion that it won’t pass is invalid

Well you can’t find the correct logical meaning as a whole if you incorrectly identify the sufficient and necessary condition. In terms of sufficient negation and necessary negation it doesn’t matter where you place each concept, just that you follow the negation rules

X

I agree! I was so confused I thought I made a mistake in translation

YES!

2.3 reads: A pilot earns his wings when he completes his training.

The “when” indicates sufficient

So it becomes: completes training -> earns wings

And the contrapositive is: /earn wings -> /complete training

If you were to make the contrapositive: /complete training -> /earn wings

Then the original statement would have read: earn wings -> complete training

So you confused, sufficient and necessary conditions. Remember for contrapositive flip, and negate!

I don’t understand how B contradicts the logic. If premise true then not false. So of the three things, you’re not accepting that the premises are false, but you are accepting the conclusion as true which is necessary to solving the paradox

Yeah I made that assumption too

‘Lab’ threw me off for B because the conclusion was about archeological techniques and nothing suggested that those techniques involve labs.

E says physiological, not PSYCHological…so E weakens the arg by saying that physical, not psychological factors are the cause

Some arguments are stronger than other because the premises provided more adequate support to justify the claim/conclusion. For example, the Disney argument provides multiple premises and eliminates other possibilities (ie. prostrate themselves). In the tiger claim, however, a case-specific premise (tigers) is used to support a more general conclusion (mammals). In the detective argument, the premise fails to eliminate other possibilities.

Tiger (conclusion + premise): Not all reality TV shows are fake. After all, the Kardashian’s broadcast their real life experiences.

Disney (rules): Everyone who received a medal played in the soccer tournament, or they paid an additional fee to receive the metal. Since Jeanie has a broken leg she can’t play in the tournament but she still received a medal, so she must have paid the additional fee.

Detective (causation): The new container of ice cream i bought is now empty sitting on the counter. My sister was seen washing her favourite ice cream bowl, therefore my sister must have stolen my ice cream,