PT 38 S2 Q20

mitrakhanom1

I am still confused why the conclusion is adequate productivity --> high- tech technology. I negated the high tech technology part because of the "not" present in the sentence. I tried reviewing my notes and I can't find where he explains in the negation of conditional logic that this is viable.

nye8870

Is this LR or LG?

mitrakhanom1

sorry it should be pt 39 s2 q20

nye8870

The stim only has three sentences, which is nice. Even nicer, the first sentence simply defines what the term productivity means. So we are left with only two sentences. A premise and a conclusion. The premise uses “without” so we negate one side and make it sufficient (HP --> ATW). In English: If we do have high productivity, then we must have adequately trained workers. But the conclusion states: “So high productivity does not depend on having high-tech equipment.” Well, I asked myself…why not? What if the training needs computers? What if training involves a hi-tech simulator? Based on the one simple premise that HP needs ATW does not tell us anything about other possible requirements. The argument definitely ac(B): ignores the possibility that having high-tech equipment is required for adequate training of workers. The conclusion actually says: “It is not the case that HP requires HiTech”, but offers no support to arrive there.