Hi!

Where can I find this explanation/info regarding sufficient condition fails- rule irrelevant, necessary condition satisfied- rule irrelevant?

I'm so confused by LG! :( I think this is an area of weakness for me when it comes to conditionals.

Please help!

Thanks for your comment Jonathan. That makes perfect sense, with more drilling/practise I can see how you can to and fro with the conditional relationships in your head. Much quicker. Thanks again!

I got this one wrong however upon trying to drill some understanding into my head, I came up with reasoning as to why E is correct.

The conclusion renders the proposal pointless on the basis that hardly any lobsters will be harmed by gill disease (as they don't live long enough).

However, it doesn't assure us that the lobsters DON'T/WON'T have gill disease, which means that there's a chance they will still contract the disease, especially as we know not all sewerage will be re-routed.

Now, say the lobsters do contract gill disease, there is a possibility for them (the lobsters) to remain relatively unHARMED by the disease, for example, the disease might make them turn hot pink for 5 years and perhaps that doesn't really bother/harm the lobsters, as they can still chill in the water and feel good about themselves. And only after this time would the disease become harmful for the them (perhaps internally). A huh! It wont matter because they don't live long enough for this to happen.

So although diseased the lobsters are hot pink and chillin (unharmed) in the water, if WE (humans) ingest any of these lobsters WE are the ones who will (often) become ill.

This idea makes answer choice E meaningful as it captures that humans become ill by eating lobsters with gill disease. The proposal doesn't sound so pointless now!

I'm don't know if my reply makes much sense to others but this is one of the trickiest questions I've come across and I needed to put some sort of notes down!

I recognise with answer choice C that it modifies "anyone else" with [in similar circumstances] which automatically distinguishes that this group (of people in similar circumstances) is a subset of ALL (society).

If this modifier was left out and it instead said "if it is wrong for a given person to commit an act, it is wrong for everyone to commit this act" would it then come close to the original flaw?

Thoughts?

E is tricky but false as the conclusion in the stimulus refers to EVIDENCE of the causal connection- it is not referring to the causal connection itself.

When under the time constraint, I initially grabbed for answer C as I didn't fully comprehend what the author was saying (getting caught up in the tricky language and context) However, in the blind review I narrowed in more closely to understand the passage and worked out that the key (for me) in distinguishing answer A as the correct answer lies more in distinguishing the the context/meaning the words "mere" ("merely") and "representation" in answer choice A & C.

Answer C says "artists should not base all their work on mere representation"- for me, I felt this was suggesting that their work should include something aside from representation. (Not explicitly mentioned by the author)

HOWEVER Answer A says "An artists work should not merely represent objects from outside the psyche"- meaning that an artists work should not be limited to objects outside the psyche- in fact it lends itself to the idea an artists work should/could represent objects from both inside and outside the psyche, which aligns with the conclusion- (as representing works from inside the psyche must not be an ironic waste!)

I really find the switching/placements of the words mere, merely and representation- was my main source of confusion between answer A & C but those words are key as they really do alter the meaning of what's being said and before long it begins makes sense!

I hope this helps someone ;)