Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Need Help Please! Not sure if my logic is correct on a question.

165LSATDUDE165LSATDUDE Live Member
in Logical Reasoning 85 karma

Someone tell me if I'm correct in this logic. This is for question #2. Here is the link.

https://7sage.com/lesson/quiz-on-finding-sufficient-assumptions-with-intersection-statements-2-answers/?ss_completed_lesson=11895

G –m→ N

G –m→ /A

G-m->N-m->/A = I’m not able to draw it out like how JY does so this is what I put however, on paper I draw it out like JY does.

N—>/A = Answer

So in regards to N-m->/A not being the answer, let me explain.

/A
/A
GN
GN
GN/A
GN/A
G/A
G/A
N/A
N/A

Now the reason N-m->/A is incorrect is because this answer would effect the conclusion. Say you had more A’s and more N’s then it wouldn’t be the case that G-m->/A is the answer because look, I have more A’s and N’s that are not G’s so how could G –m→ /A? This would make the conclusion invalid. It has to be certain that most G’s are /A and by getting ride of N-m->/A statement were getting ride of the extra two N’s that carry A with it as well as the other extra two /A’s. If N-m->/A then how does G-m->/A work? Out of the 6 N’s, two are A which pulls from the conclusion by saying, “No, G-m->/A invalid because we have two extra A’s therefore out of all the A’s which is 8 (100%) only 4 G’s are A’s and it needs to be 5 to count for most. The N-m->/A is satisfied but doesn’t allow the conclusion to be valid so the sufficient assumption that N—>/A makes it 100% true that yes G –m→ /A.

GN
GN
GN/A
GN/A
G/A
G/A

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • The2ndSageThe2ndSage Member
    64 karma

    If I am understanding you correctly, I think you are pretty much right here. Like you say, if your second premise was N-m->/A instead of N—>/A then you could not conclude G –m→ /A because it would then be a "some" relationship between G and /A rather than a most relationship.

    There are two parts I did not understand if you can explain further:
    For the first list you make (granted, I might be misunderstanding it), why do you have the two G/A's? Those then make a total of 4 out of 6 G's that have /A with it. So that would mean G-m->/A is true and I thought you were trying to show how it does not work with this list, right?

    For the second list (again, I might be misunderstanding it), it looks like you are illustrating the SA premise of N—>/A, and if so, you need "/A" with the first two "GN"s. That is because for every N, you must have a /A, so you cannot have a GN without a GN/A.

  • 165LSATDUDE165LSATDUDE Live Member
    85 karma

    Hi, thank you for taking the time out to reply. I think I was way over thinking this big time and it didn't help that I was exhausted. I was trying to show that if N-m->/A, then the conclusion is invalid because as you stated there would be a some relationship in the conclusion rather then a most. Now in regards to the second list, I meant to put / next to the A. Bottom line is that N-m->/A doesn't allow the conclusion to be true and N—>/A does. Is this correct?

Sign In or Register to comment.