Can someone help explain difference between two similar questions.

enzonabiev

I'm having trouble understanding the logical difference between very similar sufficient assumption questions. The questions are from PT 36 SECTION 1 #18 and PT 63 SECTION 1 #10. I'm having trouble understanding why for PT 36 an answer choice (D) that satisfies the sufficient condition of the conclusion is correct but for PT 63 an answer choice (D) that satisfies the sufficient condition of the conclusion is incorrect. Thanks in advance if anyone can help!

deleted account

@enzonabiev

These are both sufficient assumption questions. In the first question, D does satisfy the assumption. But in 63.01.10, answer choice (D) does not satisfy the assumption.

The argument is: she did something -> caused damage -> therefore should pay if she knew.
The _entire_ conclusion is the last sentence, and since no support is provided for it, we cannot reasonably assume that it is correct that she _should_ pay if she knew that the damage would be caused.

Therefore, "D" did not fill a gap at all. D says that she knew, so _if_ the conclusion had been that she should pay, then D would fill a gap. But the conclusion doesn't say that. It says IF she knew then she should pay. The difference is that the conclusion is not actually drawn about what she should do.

What fills the gap is answer choice (A). A says exactly what we were looking for -- if one knew then one should pay. It's kind of like a principle question -- right now we have a situation and we are drawing a conclusion about how we should act in that situation, based not on a formal logic argument but on a principle that ca be broadly applied to draw conclusions.