Parallel Reasoning Question

[willwants170]

The LR bible says if the stimulus has a positive conclusion, negative terms in the conclusion isn't grounds for dropping the answer. I'm wondering what it means and this is the two interpretations for example that I've been thinking:

Stimulus: Jeff should be late.
Answer: She should not be absent.
Both recommend a positive action but the answer has a negative term. I know this isn't grounds for crossing out the answer.
or
Stimulus: Jeff should be early.
Answer: She should not be ready .
The stimulus recommend a positive action but the answer has a negative term and recommends a negative action. Am I allowed to cross out the answer based on the positive vs negative action? Thank you!

[willwants170]

Sorry for the first example, I realized that the stimulus has a negative action. Let's replace "late" with "productive."

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Will,

I get the simplification you are trying to get at here, but you need more info in the stimulus to make that judgment. For example, "productive" vs "not absent" isn't enough since we need to know how they relate to the premises. So that change you suggest doesn't tell me enough

The key point is that often people get hung up on conclusions that are "positive" in how they are presented, so much so that if they see a "negative" term in the answer they kill it. That approach can easily fail, hence me making the point in the book.

Classic example is a conclusion that says, " an honest accountant always double checks the books," and then an answer says that "the city never fails to impose fines when applicable." At a glance, many people see "always" and never" and say one is positive and the other is negative, and eliminate the answer. But that doesn't work because they are both absolute terms, and the negativity is irrelevant. So it's more about presentation language rather than any inherent "goodness" or positivity in the nature of the action, if that helps.

Thanks!

[willwants170]

This helps, thank you David!