#10 - People with serious financial problems are so worried

[Naminyar]

I Chose Answer choice B
Can anyone help me understand why is it incorrect?

Thanks

[Dave Killoran]

I Chose Answer choice B
Can anyone help me understand why is it incorrect?

Thanks

Hi Naminyar,

As mentioned above, this answer is incorrect because it is the Mistaken Negation of the first sentence. Alternatively, this is also the Mistaken Reversal of the third sentence. So, either way you see, this answer does not have to be true.

[ericsilvagomez]

Hello,

I understand that for this question, you must find the contrapositive of the first sentence and repeat the third sentence, but the diagram you put confused me a little. When I think of the contrapositive, I think of a diagram where you switch the necessary and sufficient conditions and then put a line through them. And then the repeat is just a reiteration of both conditions. Can you elaborate on how answer choice E contains a repeat of sentence three? Also, for some reason, I could not quite picture the mistaken negation and mistaken reversal diagrams when going through the other answer choices. When I think of mistaken negation, I think of the sufficient and necessary conditions crossed out. The mistaken reversal is when you switch the conditions to the opposite places. Thanks, and sorry if this got confusing!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Eric,

To be clear, when you diagram a contrapositive, you reverse the terms and negate the terms. To negate a term, if the term is originally positive, then you make it negative (by adding a slash to it in your diagram). However, if a term is originally negative, you negate it by making it positive (by removing the slash in your diagram).

For example, the first sentence of the stimulus is basically saying "if people have serious financial problems, then they cannot be happy."

This can be diagrammed:

SFP -> not H (which would be diagrammed "H" with a slash through it)

When taking the contrapositive, you reverse and negate, so the opposite of "not happy" is "happy" and the opposite of "SFP" is "not SFP."

H -> not SFP (which would be diagrammed SFP with a slash through it)

This contrapositive is Answer E.

You don't really need the third statement in the stimulus to get the answer, but it's worth examining.

The third sentence of the stimulus is basically saying "if people can be happy, then their financial problems are solved."

In this case, having one's "financial problems solved" is just another way of saying that one doesn't have financial problems (anymore). In other words, once a problem is solved it is no longer a problem.

As such, the third sentence could also be diagrammed:

H -> not FP (which would be diagrammed "FP" with a slash through it)

You may notice that this statement mentioned "financial problems" in general rather than specifically "serious financial problems," but that is not a problem. Since financial problems include serious financial problems, if all your financial problems are solved, then so are your serious ones.

[ericsilvagomez]

Hi,

Thank you for the explanation! Rereading the stimulus and answer choice E with that in mind helped.

[holy115]

People with serious financial problems are so worried about money that they cannot be happy. Their misery makes everyone close to them—family, friends, colleagues—unhappy as well. Only if their financial problems are solved can they and those around them be happy.

While I was analyzing the above question, I had a hard time to understand what sentence could be converted to a conditional logic statement and what can't be, not only to the above stimulus but in general.

P1: People with serious financial problems are so worried about money that they cannot be happy.
-> If people have serious financial problems, then they(people) can't be happy.
P2: Their misery makes everyone close to them—family, friends, colleagues—unhappy as well.
-> If the people can't be happy, then everyone close to them are unhappy.
P3: Only if their financial problems are solved can they and those around them be happy.
-> If the people are happy and those around them are happy, then the people don't have serious financial problems.

First, would the above conversion be accurate?

Second, in the LRB explanation, it is said that "The second sentence is not conditional and contains only
general statements about the effects of their misery." This is where my confusion arises. To me, it seems like P2 is also able to be converted.

Third, I'm confused about generalizing what could be conditionalized. For example, sentences like "It rained" and "There is a tree" can't be conditionalized, while "It rained in Chicago" and "There is a tree in the streets" could be conditionalized. Also, "A person is an animal." and "The climate of Chicago is hot." can be conditionalized. What would be the rule here?

Fourth, in the LRB, it is said that "Note that the third sentence provides the contrapositive of the first sentence.". I believe that the third sentence has an additional element of "those around them are happy" other than "people are happy". How could this be a contrapositive of the first sentence when it only has "they(people) can/can't be happy"?

Thanks in advance!

[Stephanie Oswalt]

People with serious financial problems are so worried about money that they cannot be happy. Their misery makes everyone close to them—family, friends, colleagues—unhappy as well. Only if their financial problems are solved can they and those around them be happy.

While I was analyzing the above question, I had a hard time to understand what sentence could be converted to a conditional logic statement and what can't be, not only to the above stimulus but in general.

P1: People with serious financial problems are so worried about money that they cannot be happy.
-> If people have serious financial problems, then they(people) can't be happy.
P2: Their misery makes everyone close to them—family, friends, colleagues—unhappy as well.
-> If the people can't be happy, then everyone close to them are unhappy.
P3: Only if their financial problems are solved can they and those around them be happy.
-> If the people are happy and those around them are happy, then the people don't have serious financial problems.

First, would the above conversion be accurate?

Second, in the LRB explanation, it is said that "The second sentence is not conditional and contains only
general statements about the effects of their misery." This is where my confusion arises. To me, it seems like P2 is also able to be converted.

Third, I'm confused about generalizing what could be conditionalized. For example, sentences like "It rained" and "There is a tree" can't be conditionalized, while "It rained in Chicago" and "There is a tree in the streets" could be conditionalized. Also, "A person is an animal." and "The climate of Chicago is hot." can be conditionalized. What would be the rule here?

Fourth, in the LRB, it is said that "Note that the third sentence provides the contrapositive of the first sentence.". I believe that the third sentence has an additional element of "those around them are happy" other than "people are happy". How could this be a contrapositive of the first sentence when it only has "they(people) can/can't be happy"?

Thanks in advance!

Hi holy,

Thanks for the post. I have moved your post to the thread discussing this question. Please review the official explanation on page 1, as well as the discussion that follows, and let us know if that helps! Thanks!