Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PT40  (Read 295 times)

nooyyllib

  • Guest
PT40
« on: March 13, 2009, 08:28:57 PM »
PT 40 Section 3 #17:

whats the flawed reasoning in the stimulus?

Scentless Apprentice

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
  • My ego isnt LSD strong but I still want to play.
    • View Profile
    • LSN
    • Email
Re: PT40
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2009, 09:15:05 PM »
I think it's a mistaken reversal. The stimulus is saying that because the necessary condition occured, the sufficient condition must have occured as well. It's a reversal of the conditional statement in the first sentence.

It makes sense that answer choice A is correct:

Have a dog -> know the true value of companionship

The argument errs by saying that because Alicia knows the true value of companionship, she must have a dog. That's wrong..it's possible that she knows the true value of compansionship for some other reason..


Birds of a feather flock together.

LSN