#15 - Sonya: Anyone who lives without constant awareness of

[kbargeman]

Hi!

I got this question right but I realized that I did unnecessary work. For some reason I keep mislabeling simple sufficient/necessary conditions as conditions with multiple sufficient/necessary. For this problem I did this:

not CAF (constant awareness of the fragility) & (not PHL precariousness of human life) > MC (mind clouded)

CAF & PHL > not EOE (not EOE emotional outlook on existence)



I have also make this mistake on other problems. How do I tell if the condition has multiple sufficient or multiple necessary? When I see an “and” I automatically assume there is multiple conditions.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi kbargeman,

A rule of thumb you could rely on here would be that, if the joined terms (the terms joined by "and") follow after and modify a prior term in a condition, then you can treat them as a single concept "underneath" that prior term.

A simple example: "People who swim with snorkels and fins are cheating." The joined terms ("snorkels and fins") come after and modify a prior term ("swim") in that sufficient condition. I'd abbreviate "swim with snorkels and fins" as "SSF." So, for diagramming purposes: SSF Cheat.

In this question, "fragility and precariousness" follow after and modify the term "constant awareness," so you can treat them as a single concept underneath the term "constant awareness."

BUT, if the joined terms are independent of each other and not both being used to modify a prior term in the condition, then treat them as separate entities.

A simple example: "If you swim and you play tennis, then you are healthy." Notice how the "and" joins two terms that are independent ("swim," and "play tennis"), and those terms are not collectively being used to modify a prior term in the condition. So, for diagramming purposes: S + T H.

Let me know if this helps clear this one up for you!

Jeremy

[Duval]

Hello - I hate to belabor the point of 'without' being the necessary condition, but I feel I am still unclear. Upon reading this question, I identified "anyone who" as a sufficient condition indicator (thinking it was close enough to 'people who'), making "live without constant awareness" the sufficient condition.
Diagrammed: Live with constant awareness ---> Mind Clouded by Illusion
I came out with all the correct diagrams and contrapositives explained here and was able to identify the correct answer, so my question is was it wrong to make that jump from 'people who' to 'anyone who'? Is there a rule about whether to use the necessary or sufficient condition indicators if both are present? I know 'only' beats out sufficient indicators, but I did not know if that could be said for other necessary indicators.

Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Duval,

You were right on target with your diagram. The key here is that you can use a word like "without" in a way that is not conditional. Not every word that falls on a conditional list is used conditionally every time. In this case, the conditional term is the "anyone who" (and you correctly noted that it was a sufficient term) and the "without" serves to negate the sufficient term. It isn't a separate conditional indicator here.

We can see this easier if we rephrase the conditional statement to "if/then" language. I often suggest doing this if the language is complex, because it can help you really focus on the terms. So in this case, the "anyone who" becomes "if you."

If you live without constant awareness, then you have a mind clouded by illusion.

That makes it easier to see the clear sufficient condition, and the clear necessary condition. The without is just a way to say the negative. You could even rephrase it again and keep the same logic.

If you live with no constant awareness, then your mind is clouded by illusion.

In summary--trust yourself! You are rocking this.

[ashpine17]

hey regarding anyone in C, is anyone broader category than the two categories discussed in the stimulus? like the stimulus talks about anyone WHO is X and who is not X? is that another reason why C is wrong? I guess self-deception is a further step from the mind clouded by illusion and tainting emotional outlook but regarding that, i thought the terms were close enough...

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ash,

Exactly. Answer choice (C) talks about something that is not proven by the stimulus. We can't point to a place in the stimulus that proves that answer choice. I'm not sure if self-deception would be the same as a mind clouded by illusion. Couldn't the illusion relate to how you see others or the world around you? Since the stimulus doesn't establish one way or another, we can't know answer choice (C) for certain. Answer choice (D) on the other hand is something that we can prove based on the combination of conditional statements.

Hope that helps!