I understood the flaw in the reasoning, yet I couldn't transform that into understanding what the argument was overlooking. I created this easier example with the same flawed structure but the conclusion is much easier to think about, at least for me...
If you have a cat, you have a pet. If you don’t have pet food you must not have a cat. So if you don’t have a cat you don’t have a pet.
I understood the flaw in the reasoning, yet I couldn't transform that into understanding what the argument was overlooking. I created this easier example with the same flawed structure but the conclusion is much easier to think about, at least for me...
If you have a cat, you have a pet. If you don’t have pet food you must not have a cat. So if you don’t have a cat you don’t have a pet.