NA help please

TheBatman

Admin note: copyright issue

---

I don't get how both these answers are saying different things. I think they are both NA, but apparently the first answer is not a NA.

How is the first answer not NA? And is there a difference between these two answers in what they are saying?

stepharizona

I believe the issue here is the negation.

All goes to not all not none

So anything would be not everything....

Vs

Some becoming none.

That's where I see the difference.

So as you said:
1.) "Anything that is an effective approach for accomplishing a gaol is also a fun approach for accomplishing that goal."

Would be Negated: Not everything that is an effective approach for accomplishing a goal is also a fun approach for accomplishing that goal.

Or

It's not the case that anything that is an effective approach for accomplishing a goal is also a fun approach for accomplishing that goal.

2.) "Some activities that are effective are fun"

Negated: No activity that is effective is fun

FixedDice

@TheBatman said:
1.) "Anything that is an effective approach for accomplishing a gaol is also a fun approach for accomplishing that goal."
Negated: Nothing that is an effective approach for accomplishing a gaol is also a fun approach for accomplishing that goal.

The correct way to negate that would be "not everything," not "nothing."

I don't get how both these answers are saying different things. I think they are both NA, but apparently the first answer is not a NA.

How is the first answer not NA? And is there a difference between these two answers in what they are saying?

The first statement is a universal statement that encompasses all effective approaches, and the second an existential statement that includes some effective approach(es).

The first statement is not necessary assumption because "not all effective approaches for accomplishing a goal are also fun" could still mean that some effective approach(es) for accomplishing a goal is (or are) also fun. Negating the first statement doesn't utterly cripple the argument, so it's not a necessary assumption.

mattnaw

Answer choice 1 is sufficient not necessary.
It is too strong. It doesn’t have to be that ALL As are Bs, just that some A’s are B’s for the argument to potentially work. The negation of AC1 allows for some effective approaches to be fun, so negating AC1 doesn’t destroy the argument.

Answer choice 2 is necessary because the negation of some is none. If no effective approaches are fun, the argument doesn’t work

goingfor99th

1. all effective are fun
   negation: not all effective are fun

2. some effective are fun
   negation: no effective are fun