#12 - One should apologize only to a person one has wronged

[SGD2021]

Hello,

I am still struggling in certain cases to identify sufficient and necessary conditions when there are no "typical" indicator words present. (For example, we say the necessary condition is the requirement for the sufficient condition to occur, but we also say that the sufficient condition is "sufficient" for the necessary condition to occur (which almost sounds like a requirement in itself), so when I apply that logic to determining sufficient vs necessary condition for my diagrams, I sometimes get tripped up). What are tips for determining the sufficient and necessary conditions in a statement like the following that doesn’t have indicator words? Statement: One cannot sincerely accept an apology that was not sincerely offered. Is the word “that” often an indicator for a sufficient condition?

Additionally, would it be recommended that as soon as we start to notice conditional language in the stimulus (especially lots of conditional words) then we should start diagramming as we are reading/even before finishing the entire stimulus?

Finally, if two necessary conditions match, the conditional statements can’t be connected (and we can’t say there is a relationship between any of the terms in the statements), correct?

[Robert Carroll]

SGD2021,

Conditional indicators are helpful, but not comprehensive. A conditional relationship is a universal relationship - every time the sufficient happens, the necessary must happen. If you have two qualities such that the presence of one guarantees the presence of the other, there is a conditional. So looking at "One cannot sincerely accept an apology that was not sincerely offered", is that a universal relationship? Sure - every time an apology fails to be sincerely offered, it cannot be sincerely accepted. I think, though, that this situation isn't really one where indicators are absent - "cannot" expresses necessity. "X cannot happen" means "it is necessary that X fails to happen", so I think this statement does have an indicator.

I don't think "that" can be considered an indicator of conditionality. It's too inconsistent.

I would not start diagramming the stimulus before finishing it. That would break up the flow of reading. When I see conditional indicators, I might make a mental note to go back right to those after reading the stimulus so I remember to diagram them. But since a stimulus is always so small, that probably isn't even necessary.

Two necessary conditions matching won't result in a connection. Thinking otherwise involves a Mistaken Reversal.

Robert Carroll

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powerscore,
I still have a question on E. E said "acknowledge that a wrongful act has occurred" but the stimulus is saying "acknowledge that one has acted wrongfully" and "acknowledge a wrong". Why it is ok to think those are talking about the same thing? I thought they were different.
Also, for A, the same reason we eliminate A is that A said "subsequently repeats" but stimulus said, "one intends not to repeat". If we eliminate A because the AC does not match the stimulus wording accurately, why we cannot eliminate E for similar reasons?

[Robert Carroll]

CJ12345:,

I'm not sure what difference you see in them. In the stimulus, apologizing sincerely requires acknowledging that one has acted wrongfully. A fortiori, one must acknowledge that a wrongful act has occurred - the one apologizing is acknowledging even more than that. Not only do they acknowledge the act has occurred, they acknowledge they have been the one to act in such a way. So the stimulus proves that half of answer choice (E).

According to the stimulus, accepting an apology sincerely requires acknowledging a wrong. Adding "act" to that is just redundant.

So everything in answer choice (E) is provable based on the stimulus.

Wording doesn't matter, at all. Meaning matters. The facts in the stimulus prove the facts in answer choice (E). And they don't prove the facts in answer choice (A) - intending not to repeat a wrongful act doesn't mean anything close to not repeating a wrongful act. The issue with answer choice (A) was not that the wording was different, but that entirely different ideas, neither of which entails the other, were discussed between the stimulus and that answer.

Robert Carroll