PT14.S4.Q9 - New tax plan

andre3000

Hi, would really appreciate any thoughts on this question. My understanding of the stimulus is as follows:
Support NT --> /chance of elect.
Und E -->/support NT
Conclusion: Und E --> Chance of elect.

I'm not entirely sure how the AC follows from this. Thank you in advance!

canihazJD

@andre3000 said:
Support NT --> /chance of elect.
Und E -->/support NT
Conclusion: Und E --> Chance of elect.

Check your conclusion. Only someone who understands has a chance of being elected.

You have: if you understand then you have a chance of being elected.

FaviPapi-1-1

The conclusion is not what you have but rather this: chance of elect. -> Und E

Do you see the flaw?

In short the flaw is that the author takes this statement, Und E -->/support NT, to be this statement, /support NT -> Und E. This is a common flaw: confusing the necessary condition with the sufficient condition.

Why would the author do such a thing? Well, the simple reason is that doing so would help his conclusion:

chance of elect.** -> /support NT -> Und E**
Conclusion: chance of elect. -> Und E

Moving along with the answer choices:

There are many ways that one can claim such common flaw. The simplest is by picking an answer that describes it. In this case would be an answer that says that the argument confused the necessary condition with the sufficient condition. However, the test writers went a step further: they took the unwarranted assumption that the author made, /support NT -> Und E, and they wrecked it with answer choice D. What answer choice D says is that despite confusing the necessary condition with the sufficient condition, the author presumed something that is not necessarily so: answer choice D says that there are some people who are "/support NT" and do not "Und E." This, overall, wrecks the relationship of /support NT -> Und E by saying that Und E is not necessary for /support NT.

andre3000

Awesome, thank you both @canihazJD & @FaviPapi