PT62.S2.Q11 - scientist: to study the comparative

mitrakhanom1

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-11/

When writing out the conditional logic for the reporter, I initially got /C--> /M but when I went back to review I got C---> M. In other words, because of the if I kept cured as the sufficient and then placed medication M as the necessary. But I thought when you have the word not in the sufficient side and the not in the necessary side you can negate the necessary side twice. I guess what I'm confused on is when you have "not" written on the sufficient and necessary conditional. If not is on both sides of the conditional how do you use lawgic?

nye8870

http://7sage.com/lesson/clarification-for-the-only/ C ---> M is correct. Check out this lesson...

mitrakhanom1

nye8870, I'm referring to the reporter not the scientist.

nye8870

@mitrakhanom1 Ok. The reporter wrongly concludes /C --> /M. You can look at the contrapositive which is:
If M --> C. Then the flaw becomes quite apparent: the premise is C ---> M but reporter gets it backwards M --> C. Basically the reporter says "If M" _____ In lawgic we can't conclude something from an affirmation of the necessary. (unless it is a bi-conditional, which we don't have but would look like this C <--> M ).