Original statement:
it is rational not to acquire such info unless one expects that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so
Two ideas:
rational not acquire info
expects benefits outweigh c&d
Group 3 Rule: negate sufficient
[not] expects benefits outweigh c&d --> rational not acquire info
Contrapositive:
[not] rational not acquire info --> expects benefits outweigh c&d
Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.
Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.
Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.
Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.
The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.
You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."
Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.
Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.
Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.
Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.
The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.
You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."