#18 - Some planning committee members--those representing

[Robert Carroll]

conorrjohnston,

Let's examine each thing you diagrammed:

Planning Committee Members Sig Financial Interests

This is correct.

Planning Committee Members <-NONE I -> (X) Live in Suburbs

This diagram doesn't look right to me. You can make a "none" into a conditional or a Double-Not Arrow.

As a conditional:

planning committee member live in suburbs

As a Double-Not Arrow:

planning committee member live in suburbs

Planning Committee Members Work in Suburbs.

This isn't correct. "Many" does not mean "most". "Many" is usually, and definitely here, used as a "some" indicator. So the correct diagram is as follows:

planning committee member work in suburbs

This highlights the issue with answer choice (C). Some members have significant financial interests. Some members work in the suburbs. There's no reason for those to be the same members, though. The committee may have 10 members. 3 of the 10 have significant financial interests. 4 of the 10 work in the suburbs. There are enough members in the committee for there to be no overlap between these two subgroups.

The opposite problem exists with answer choice (D). What if the ones with significant financial interests, specifically the ones representing the construction industry, are the same as the ones who work in the suburbs? They could be!

So the problem with both answer choices is that they may be true, but also may not be. They thus don't meet the standards of a Must Be True question.

Robert Carroll