LRB Workbook Page 77 Question 13

[bmcd921]

I have a question about the answer to this problem. I got this question wrong because of an error in diagramming, but I'm not sure where my error lies. I successfully identified the premises and the conclusion, the conclusion being: "few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing." I used the unless equation to identify "economically enticing" as the necessary condition since it's being modified by unless, and "serious problems solved" with a slash through it (negation of the statement, as per the equation) as the sufficient. However in the explanation to this question, the conclusion was diagrammed differently, and I'm confused because I thought that I was following the unless equation correctly while solving this problem. Consequently, I got this question wrong because none of the answers seemed to fill in the gap according to my diagram. Thanks for your help!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi bmcd921,

Thanks for your question.

The author believes that few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing. You are correct in that by applying the Unless Equation, the "solutions being economically enticing" is the necessary condition. The remainder - "few serious ecological problems will be solved" must be negated to become sufficient. Technically, "few" negates to "many" or "not few," but for the sake of simplification let's eliminate the word completely, and assume that the statement would apply to most, if not all, serious ecological problems.

So, here's the conclusion:

Solve serious eco. problems Solution economically enticing

As you may notice, the conclusion introduces a new element into the argument - "serious ecological problems" - that must be linked to the rest of the argument. Only answer choices (A) and (E) mention this element, which makes your task considerably easier.

Let me know if this helps. Thanks!

[bmcd921]

Hey Nikki, thanks for the help. I'm confused about why you negate "few" instead of negating the "will" (I negated this so that it would say that the problems will NOT be solved). How did you know that you need to negate the quantity and not the action in the statement?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi,

First, you need to think about the meaning of the phrase you're trying to negate. Second, you need to think about the logical opposite of that phrase. What's the opposite of "few politicians admit to any wrongdoing"? Technically, yes - you can negate to "few politicians do not admit to any wrongdoing," but this contains a double-negative and is terribly convoluted. Instead, let's think about what the author means to say. Clearly, he believes that politicians tend not to admit to any wrongdoing. So, if you're going to argue with him about this, you'd likely want to show that politicians usually do admit to wrongdoing.

Typically, the opposite is formed by changing the verb to its logically opposite (or simply adding the word "not"). Occasionally, however, this would result in a rather verbose and convoluted statement that requires further manipulation on your part.

Does this make sense?