- Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:47 pm
#37673
I am confused with the answer key explanation for this question, specifically the explanation for why answer choice A is wrong. The answer key (in the powerscore online resource) states, "Answer choice (A) is incorrect; we cannot presume that those who don't use mediation will always use litigation (as litigation is the sufficient condition that requires one to be sure that one's position is correct)."
I don't understand why the answer key explanation uses the sufficient condition of litigation to explain why this answer choice is wrong. Answer choice (A) states, "People who do not undergo meditation to resolve their conflicts should be sure that their positions are correct." I thought that maybe this answer choice is wrong because there is no conditional link between "those who don't use mediation" and "positions are correct." The two conditional relationships in the stimulus (after linking the contrapositive of statement 1 and 3) is "ideological conflict --> not willing to compromise --> should not use mediation" and "litigation --> sure to be right.". There is no conditional connection between "should not use meditation" and "sure to be right," so this answer choice is wrong, right?
I think I am mainly confused with why the answer key mentioned "litigation" when the answer choice doesn't mention it. The "position being correct" is a necessary condition in both the stimulus and the answer choice (A). Therefore, the existence of "correctness" can be present with or without its sufficient condition ("litigation"). In other words, I can have a correct position without pursuing litigation. Therefore, I am not sure why the answer key explanation states "we cannot presume that those who don't use mediation will always use litigation," when the answer choice does not necessary need the sufficient condition to exist.
Sorry for the long post! I wasn't sure whether I was explaining my problem very well. Please let me know if you need clarification. Thanks so much!!
I don't understand why the answer key explanation uses the sufficient condition of litigation to explain why this answer choice is wrong. Answer choice (A) states, "People who do not undergo meditation to resolve their conflicts should be sure that their positions are correct." I thought that maybe this answer choice is wrong because there is no conditional link between "those who don't use mediation" and "positions are correct." The two conditional relationships in the stimulus (after linking the contrapositive of statement 1 and 3) is "ideological conflict --> not willing to compromise --> should not use mediation" and "litigation --> sure to be right.". There is no conditional connection between "should not use meditation" and "sure to be right," so this answer choice is wrong, right?
I think I am mainly confused with why the answer key mentioned "litigation" when the answer choice doesn't mention it. The "position being correct" is a necessary condition in both the stimulus and the answer choice (A). Therefore, the existence of "correctness" can be present with or without its sufficient condition ("litigation"). In other words, I can have a correct position without pursuing litigation. Therefore, I am not sure why the answer key explanation states "we cannot presume that those who don't use mediation will always use litigation," when the answer choice does not necessary need the sufficient condition to exist.
Sorry for the long post! I wasn't sure whether I was explaining my problem very well. Please let me know if you need clarification. Thanks so much!!