It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Hey Guys, anyone able to help me understand this question?
I interpreted it as:
Terry: WDJ (want decent job) --> C (go to College)
Mark: it is not the case that WDJ --> C. there are other reasons for wanting to go to college than wanting a good job.
So you can translate Marks statement into: WDJ some C.
I have no idea what answer choice is right, though i initially thought B. So lost with this one.
Thanks in advance!
Comments
I think the trick for this one is to focus on Mark's response. Mark's conclusion is that whatever Terry said is wrong, based on the premise that there are in fact other reasons to go to college apart from wanting a decent job. So what would Mark's interpretation of Terry's remarks have to have been for Mark's argument to make sense?
Well, for Mark's response to make any sense at all, Terry would've had to have said something along the lines of "there is only one reason to go to college" or in this case "wanting a decent job is the only reason to go to college".
This is why answer choice (C) is correct. Although Terry certainly didn't say that wanting to get a decent job is the only reason to go to college, this is the interpretation of his statements that Mark must have had for Mark's argument to make sense.
That makes a lot more sense! Is there anyway to describe it mechanistically? (like how i negated the terry's statement into a Some Statement - or something along those lines?) Because, though it makes sense, all the other answer choices seem SO similar that if i were to do it again, I'd be in the same spot and not sure how to distinguish between them.
I'd honestly avoid using conditional logic here. I don't think either of two people's statements really lend themselves to it. Also for so early on in the section it wouldn't be good to get bogged down trying to translate this when it isn't all that helpful in answering the question.