Conditional Reasoning Diagramming Drill #3

[argumentace]

Questions on P. 194-195

Further explanation needed for question #3: “No robots can think”

Correct Answer:
R not T
T not R

Explanation:
The “No” at the beginning of the sentence actually modifies the necessary condition. If you say no robot can think, you mean that every single robot does not have the characteristic of being able to think. Thus, if an entity is a robot, then it cannot think. “None” at the beginning of the sentence would operate in exactly the same way .

My answer:
T not R
R not T

Typically the answer key explanations help me understand where I went wrong, but for this question I still don’t understand how Robot can be the sufficient condition. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Robot to be the necessary condition since its occurrence is necessary for us to then conclude that it can’t think?

I think I might be overthinking and weighing the merits too much, can anyone help explain why I’m wrong by expanding on the answer key explanation or explaining it in a different way?

[Dave Killoran]

Let me put a question to you:

Under that sentence, if you see a robot, what do you know?







If it tells yous something at all, then robot is the sufficient condition. If it told you nothing then it's a necessary
condition.

Another way to think of No here is that when it starts a sentence like this, "No [group] can/is/should/etc X" then the No functions as "all [group] do/are/etc not X."

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!