- Posts: 136
- Joined: Apr 17, 2013
- Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:57 am
#9126
Hi there PS,
Quick question. I'm just now getting into Lesson 3 Weakening questions.
When you're weakening a normal Conditional Statement/conclusion you attack the Necessary condition and show that the sufficient can occur without it.
When you're weakening a Mistaken Reversal - then you attack the sufficient condition and show that it does not have to occur even if the necessary occurs.
Is that right? (Lesson 3 pg 3-56 in Homework book vs Ichtyosaur Test 1 question)
Ex:
1) WEAKENING MISTAKEN REVERSAL
-- Conditional Statement - If an animal is a deep diving mammal then it has a porous bone structure.
-- Conclusion- Animal "A" has a porous bone structure, therefore it must be a deep sea diving mammal.
-- Attacking this Mistaken Reversal- Attack the Sufficient condition by showing that an animal can have a porous bone structure and be something other than a deep sea diving mammal.
2) WEAKENING a normal CONDITIONAL CONCLUSION that is not a Mistaken Reversal
-- Conditional Statement/Conclusion- In order to Gain Market Share a company must purchase competitors.
GMS
PC (Purchase Competitor)
-- Attacking the Non MR Conditional Conclusion - Attack the necessary and show it isn't necessary for the sufficient to occur.
So I guess, in a nutshell - attack what they're assuming to be true/must happen. If it's a mistaken reversal then the author is assuming that the sufficient will occur and that's why we attack that point.
If it's just a normal conditional statement, then attack the necessary condition because that's what the author is assuming must be true.
Is this the right idea?
Quick question. I'm just now getting into Lesson 3 Weakening questions.
When you're weakening a normal Conditional Statement/conclusion you attack the Necessary condition and show that the sufficient can occur without it.
When you're weakening a Mistaken Reversal - then you attack the sufficient condition and show that it does not have to occur even if the necessary occurs.
Is that right? (Lesson 3 pg 3-56 in Homework book vs Ichtyosaur Test 1 question)
Ex:
1) WEAKENING MISTAKEN REVERSAL
-- Conditional Statement - If an animal is a deep diving mammal then it has a porous bone structure.
-- Conclusion- Animal "A" has a porous bone structure, therefore it must be a deep sea diving mammal.
-- Attacking this Mistaken Reversal- Attack the Sufficient condition by showing that an animal can have a porous bone structure and be something other than a deep sea diving mammal.
2) WEAKENING a normal CONDITIONAL CONCLUSION that is not a Mistaken Reversal
-- Conditional Statement/Conclusion- In order to Gain Market Share a company must purchase competitors.
GMS
PC (Purchase Competitor) -- Attacking the Non MR Conditional Conclusion - Attack the necessary and show it isn't necessary for the sufficient to occur.
So I guess, in a nutshell - attack what they're assuming to be true/must happen. If it's a mistaken reversal then the author is assuming that the sufficient will occur and that's why we attack that point.
If it's just a normal conditional statement, then attack the necessary condition because that's what the author is assuming must be true.
Is this the right idea?
