- Posts: 6
- Joined: May 03, 2025
- Fri May 23, 2025 9:23 am
#112976
Hi Amber!
Thanks for your help. What confuses me about B is the past tense phrasing. Answer B does not say "This river overflows in every spring thaw following a winter with high snowfall." Instead, it says "This river has overflowed in every spring thaw following a winter with high snowfall." To me, this reads as an observation of past events, not a logical statement. That's why it makes sense to me when Robert Carroll, above, affirms that B is flawed. I'm just struggling to figure out how B is flawed differently from E and the stimulus (unless, again, the river-disease outbreak distinction is relevant).
What, exactly, ensures that B can be read as a sufficient condition? How is the "every" in B different from the "all" in E or the "each" in the stimulus? All three words seem to me to be indicating universality. But I also feel like each of the three words, in its context, indicates a universality of past events—not a logical truth.
Sorry that I'm still stuck on this one.
Thanks for your help. What confuses me about B is the past tense phrasing. Answer B does not say "This river overflows in every spring thaw following a winter with high snowfall." Instead, it says "This river has overflowed in every spring thaw following a winter with high snowfall." To me, this reads as an observation of past events, not a logical statement. That's why it makes sense to me when Robert Carroll, above, affirms that B is flawed. I'm just struggling to figure out how B is flawed differently from E and the stimulus (unless, again, the river-disease outbreak distinction is relevant).
What, exactly, ensures that B can be read as a sufficient condition? How is the "every" in B different from the "all" in E or the "each" in the stimulus? All three words seem to me to be indicating universality. But I also feel like each of the three words, in its context, indicates a universality of past events—not a logical truth.
Sorry that I'm still stuck on this one.