PT13.S2.Q26 - If Blankenship Enterprises has to switch suppliers

Comments

• akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  May 2018 edited May 2018 9377 karma

  Sorry, the “#help” is a feature for comments in the lessons. Putting the “#” sign in the beginning of your post makes the font size really big on the Forum (This is because you can use Markdown in your post.)

  That being said, this question is testing a simple sufficiency/necessity confusion error.

  A (switch suppliers)→ B (no profit)

  ---

  B (no profit)→ A (switch suppliers)

  But I get that (B) is confusing. I think (B) correctly points out the flaw by saying:

  The argument didn't show that a condition [= A (switch suppliers) ] under which a phenomenon [=B (no profit)] is said to occur is the only condition under which the phenomenon occurs, which means....

  The argument did not establish that

  • the only condition under which the phenomenon [=B (no profit)] occurs is the condition A (switch suppliers).
  • = the phenomenon B happens only when the condition A occurs.

  If A is the only condition under which a phenomenon (B) is said to occur, then that means B → A (A ↔︎ B ).

  I know that you are asking, "Wait, but "the only" introduces sufficient conditions, right?" And you are right. I think "the only condition under which the phenomenon [=B (no profit)] occurs is the condition A (switch suppliers)" can be translated as:

  • The only condition that makes B happen is the condition A. (B → A)
  • The only time the phenomenon B occurs is under the condition A. (B → A)
• henry_01 Alum Member

  May 2018 edited May 2018 26 karma

  deleted
• henry_01 Alum Member

  May 2018 26 karma

  Never mind. Looks like you're right. Thanks!