« on: December 21, 2010, 04:30:20 PM »
1) The initial issue I see is that your diagramming of the statement is incorrect. It should be H --> FS. But not to worry, thatís a common mistake since itís worded the way it is. When we say ďP does not guarantee Q,Ē that should be diagrammed as follows: Q --> P. P is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. In other words, for example, if you speed, you will get a ticket (S --> T). Getting a ticket is a necessary condition, but itís not sufficient to state that you were speeding because there are other reasons why you could have gotten the ticket. Put another way: Getting a ticket (T) does not guarantee that you were speeding (S). Similarly, when we say that, to get into a top law school (L), you need to have a high GPA (G) and LSAT score (S), we would diagram it as follows: L --> GS. However, getting a high GPA and LSAT score does not guarantee that you get into a top law school because there are other reasons and considerations that are taken into account.
So, here, H --> FS. FS is a necessary condition, but itís not sufficient for H. In other words, FS doesnít guarantee H because there are other reasons for H (i.e., health, family, etc.).
B isnít the correct answer because it states that FS isnít necessary, and we just demonstrated that FS is, in fact, necessary. So B actually weakens the conclusion in the question.
2) As for your second question, itís neither A nor B. Itís C. The function of that first statement in the argument is that itís the conclusion. The advocate starts right off with the conclusion (which is a recommendation), and the statements that follow it are facts that support his/her conclusion. Itís not a premise that, if true, would support anything in that argument; rather, it is supported by the statements that follow it. Moreover, itís not a compromise of any kind. The advocate doesnít seem to be aiming for compromise. He/she proposes X and lists facts that support X.