#22 - One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is,

[Mmjd12]

What does "compatible with the truth or falsity" mean?

That it is neither consistant nor inconsistant with the conclusion?

[Dana D]

Hey Mmjd,

This was a very confusing stimulus and answer choice!

The conclusion here is that being at home is not required for being in one's house. If that conclusion was true, we could read it as is, and the claim " one can be at home without being in one’s house" is compatible with this. You can be 'at home' without being in your house.

If the conclusion is false, we would read it as "being at home is required in order to be in one's house". The claim is still "one can be at home without being in one's house" and this still works, because as the author stated in the first sentence, you can be 'at home' but actually be in your backyard. The claim works whether the conclusion is true or false.

hope that helped!

[izzy_tingles]

Hello, I don't understand the explanations that say the second sentence of the stimulus would be required to establish the conclusion, whereas the first sentence would not be required. To me, the two initial sentences seem like contrapositives of each other. For example, I would diagram the premises as follows:

First sentence: Home not(house)
Second sentence: House not(home)
Conclusion: House not(home)

I also understand the second sentence seems to be diagrammed the same as the conclusion. But, the first sentence seems to be the contrapositive of the conclusion? Can someone explain why these two premises are treated differently? Does it have to do with semantics/wording? And also, can we even assume a sufficient/necessary relationship (as in using arrows) for either of these two premises? Thank you.

[izzy_tingles]

Hello, I have a question for the explanation that Dana D posted above. Would the first claim work whether the conclusion is true or false because the first claim has the sufficient/necessary relationship flipped? As in the truth or falsity of the conclusion never invokes the sufficient condition necessary to trigger the first claim?

This means I would diagram the first claim as: home not(house)
True conclusion: house not(home)
False conclusion: house home

So, the first claim's sufficient condition about "home" is never triggered whether the conclusion is true or false? Thank you.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Izzy,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Nikki's earlier explanation which can be found using the link below.

viewtopic.php?f=611&t=3955

I'd like to start by answering your questions "Does it have to do with semantics/wording? And also, can we even assume a sufficient/necessary relationship (as in using arrows) for either of these two premises?" as these really get to the real issue with understanding this argument.

As you may have suspected based on your questions, these premises are not conditional.

Instead, the first premise is saying:

1. It is possible to be at home and not be in your house.

What this indicates is that "Being at home" does not guarantee that you are "in your house." This is basically saying "being at home" is not sufficient to guarantee "being in your house. "

Of course, it is also possible to be at home and to be in your house. It's just that "being at home" doesn't tell us either way whether you are "in your house."

Here's a different example that may help.

If I say, "It is possible to live in the United States and not live in Texas," that means that "living in the United States" is not sufficient to indicate that one "lives in Texas." However, it is also possible to live in the United States and also to live in Texas. "Living in the United States" just doesn't tell us either way whether someone lives in Texas.

The second premise is saying:

2. It is possible to be in your house and not at home.

What this indicates is that "being in your house" does not guarantee that "you are at home." This is basically saying "being in your house" is not sufficient to guarantee "you are at home. "

These are not contrapositives of each other. Contrapositives are identical in meaning. Here, we have two different albeit related statements regarding what is possible. For example, the statement "It is possible to be hungry but not thirsty" is not the same in meaning as "It is possible to be thirsty but not hungry."

Like the premises, the conclusion is also not stating a conditional relationship. Instead, it is denying one. By stating that "being at home" is not required to "be in one's own house," the conclusion is stating that "being in one's own house" is not sufficient to indicate that "one is at home." This inference directly follows from the second premise (as discussed above) since the second premise shows that it's possible to be in your house and not at home. The first premise is not directly relevant to the conclusion and is compatible with the conclusion being false or true, as described in Answer C.