#23 - Columnist: Although most people favor the bill and the

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi Lane and Shannon,

Lane, the problem with answer choice B is that the contrapositive requires us to know, from the premises, that influential people oppose the bill. The stimulus doesn't provide quite that level of evidence. It says that influential people will be adversely affected. But it doesn't tell us for sure that they oppose the bill. Thus, I can't be sure the rule in answer choice B applies to the scenario in the stimulus.

Shannon, the assistance answer choice E provides to the stimulus reasoning is easier to see if you consider the contrapositive of answer choice E. As stated, answer choice E's structure is, "IF a democracy is well-functioning, THEN a bill that does not violate anyone's basic human rights and that most people favor will be passed promptly into law." The contrapositive of answer choice E (more directly applicable to the facts and structure of the stimulus) is "IF a bill that does not violate anyone's basic human rights and that most people favor is not passed promptly into law, THEN the democracy is not well-functioning." Notice all the elements of the "if" condition of the contrapositive are satisfied in the premises of the stimulus argument, which is exactly what we want from our principle in a Strengthen-Principle question! The premises tell us the bill doesn't violate anyone's basic human rights, is favored by most people, but will not be passed promptly into law (because it will not be passed for many years). Thus, the sufficient condition of the contrapositive of answer choice E is satisfied by the premises of the argument. Since the argument satisfies that sufficient condition, the necessary condition applies as well, and the democracy can be concluded not to be well-functioning.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

I am not sure how we cannot connect these dots. If one is adversely affected by something, unless they're deeply masochistic, they will oppose it. I am unsure how:

"It says that influential people will be adversely affected. But it doesn't tell us for sure that they oppose the bill. "

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Lane and Shannon,

Lane, the problem with answer choice B is that the contrapositive requires us to know, from the premises, that influential people oppose the bill. The stimulus doesn't provide quite that level of evidence. It says that influential people will be adversely affected. But it doesn't tell us for sure that they oppose the bill. Thus, I can't be sure the rule in answer choice B applies to the scenario in the stimulus.

Shannon, the assistance answer choice E provides to the stimulus reasoning is easier to see if you consider the contrapositive of answer choice E. As stated, answer choice E's structure is, "IF a democracy is well-functioning, THEN a bill that does not violate anyone's basic human rights and that most people favor will be passed promptly into law." The contrapositive of answer choice E (more directly applicable to the facts and structure of the stimulus) is "IF a bill that does not violate anyone's basic human rights and that most people favor is not passed promptly into law, THEN the democracy is not well-functioning." Notice all the elements of the "if" condition of the contrapositive are satisfied in the premises of the stimulus argument, which is exactly what we want from our principle in a Strengthen-Principle question! The premises tell us the bill doesn't violate anyone's basic human rights, is favored by most people, but will not be passed promptly into law (because it will not be passed for many years). Thus, the sufficient condition of the contrapositive of answer choice E is satisfied by the premises of the argument. Since the argument satisfies that sufficient condition, the necessary condition applies as well, and the democracy can be concluded not to be well-functioning.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

I am not sure how we cannot connect these dots. If one is adversely affected by something, unless they're deeply masochistic, they will oppose it. I am unsure how:

"It says that influential people will be adversely affected. But it doesn't tell us for sure that they oppose the bill. "

I might push back on that assumption just a little bit. I've voted for bills that I knew would at least somewhat adversely affect me because I believed in the broader social/global consequences of those bills, even when those consequences were not a direct benefit to me. For example, I might vote for a bill that increases my taxes to allow for the provision of social services to classes of people who I'm not among, just because I want to help those people. So the mere fact that a bill adversely affects me (by, e.g., raising my taxes) doesn't automatically mean I'll oppose it.

[Dancingbambarina]

Hi Lane and Shannon,

Lane, the problem with answer choice B is that the contrapositive requires us to know, from the premises, that influential people oppose the bill. The stimulus doesn't provide quite that level of evidence. It says that influential people will be adversely affected. But it doesn't tell us for sure that they oppose the bill. Thus, I can't be sure the rule in answer choice B applies to the scenario in the stimulus.

Shannon, the assistance answer choice E provides to the stimulus reasoning is easier to see if you consider the contrapositive of answer choice E. As stated, answer choice E's structure is, "IF a democracy is well-functioning, THEN a bill that does not violate anyone's basic human rights and that most people favor will be passed promptly into law." The contrapositive of answer choice E (more directly applicable to the facts and structure of the stimulus) is "IF a bill that does not violate anyone's basic human rights and that most people favor is not passed promptly into law, THEN the democracy is not well-functioning." Notice all the elements of the "if" condition of the contrapositive are satisfied in the premises of the stimulus argument, which is exactly what we want from our principle in a Strengthen-Principle question! The premises tell us the bill doesn't violate anyone's basic human rights, is favored by most people, but will not be passed promptly into law (because it will not be passed for many years). Thus, the sufficient condition of the contrapositive of answer choice E is satisfied by the premises of the argument. Since the argument satisfies that sufficient condition, the necessary condition applies as well, and the democracy can be concluded not to be well-functioning.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

I am not sure how we cannot connect these dots. If one is adversely affected by something, unless they're deeply masochistic, they will oppose it. I am unsure how:

"It says that influential people will be adversely affected. But it doesn't tell us for sure that they oppose the bill. "

I might push back on that assumption just a little bit. I've voted for bills that I knew would at least somewhat adversely affect me because I believed in the broader social/global consequences of those bills, even when those consequences were not a direct benefit to me. For example, I might vote for a bill that increases my taxes to allow for the provision of social services to classes of people who I'm not among, just because I want to help those people. So the mere fact that a bill adversely affects me (by, e.g., raising my taxes) doesn't automatically mean I'll oppose it.

Thanks very Jeremy. Is that the only thing wrong with B? Is there a scenario where this false equivalence is left out and replaced with something milder and more relevant, resulting in answer B being correct?

Thank you