#22 - If violations of any of a society’s explicit rules

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Tuo,

I want to adjust slightly your understanding of the flaw, so that you (and others) don't run into confusion here. The flaw is not in assuming that the non-occurrence of the sufficient condition means definitively that the necessary condition won't occur. In other words, the author is recommending we avoid something that would trigger the sufficient condition (presumably so that we at least have the chance to avoid the occurrence of the necessary condition). There's no conditional error in that logic. As Nikki points out helpfully above, there's nothing wrong (under the rules of conditional reasoning) with an argument that states, "Because we know if you smoke you will get cancer, therefore you should avoid smoking."

Rather, the flaw is in the author's misinterpretation of the sufficient condition, and I think you've noticed this in the numbered point raised in your post. And, by the way, your discussion of the definitions is on exactly the right track! "Routinely letting violations go unpunished" (the sufficient condition) isn't necessarily something that occurs if the society only sometimes (or occasionally) lets violations go unpunished. And that's because, as you've noticed, something that is routine is something that happens often. Something that happens "sometimes" is only something that happens in "some" instances (maybe as few as one instance!).

So the author's conclusion is harsher than it needs to be. To avoid triggering the sufficient condition, all we really need to conclude is that a society "ought not routinely to allow any of its explicit rules to be broken with impunity." The author has gone too far.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[desiboy96]

Hey PS, so I managed to catch the flaw for this one, (goes from talking about routine non punishment to talking about how the rules never ought to be broken).

However, I fail to understand how D communicates that flaw. I think the use of the words "sometimes not" didn't seem attractive since I thought it was not as strong as the word "never" in the conclusion which is why I was reluctant to chose it.

Based on this, can someone please help me understand where my reasoning here was wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

Sure thing, desiboy96!

If the flaw is assuming that rules must never be broken, when all we know is that they should be broken routinely, that means the other has failed to consider that it might be okay for a rule to be broken "sometimes" (which means at least once, maybe more). "Sometimes" means "not never," and that's what the author overlooked - it doesn't need to be broken "not never."

That's confusing!

Imagine a conversation with this author that goes like this:

Author: "We should never allow the rules to be broken! Never! Because chaos will ensue!"

You: "Calm down, friend. We could break the rules sometimes and we won't get chaos. Just once in a while, you know, not like all the time. So come on, let's skip school and go drink beer in the alley behind the comic book shop!"

Author: "That sounds good, actually. Okay, yeah, I guess I got carried away. We could do that sometimes, just so long as we don't make it a habit. My mistake. Okay, let's get that beer!"

See how "sometimes" is what the author failed to consider?

[desiboy96]

That makes total sense now. Thanks Adam!

[bonnie_a]

Hi est15,

The author never suggested that the course of action he recommends will necessarily prevent chaos. You're correct: chaos may or may not still occur, even if the rules aren't broken. However, the conclusion simply removes one (of many) sufficient conditions that would cause chaos. There is nothing wrong with that line of reasoning per se.

Let's take another example:

"If you smoke, you will get cancer. So, you shouldn't smoke."

My conclusion tells you not to do something that is sure to have an undesirable effect, but I make no guarantees as to whether or not you will get cancer. Nobody can. This is a perfectly valid argument.

Compare this to the following argument:

If you smoke, you will get cancer. So, to avoid getting cancer, you should not smoke.

Here, we have a Mistaken Negation, because I'm assuming that smoking is not simply sufficient to cause cancer, but necessary for it.

Does this make sense?

Thanks!

Hello, I was not sure why this would be a mistaken negation. If you smoke, then you will get cancer. Therefore, in order to avoid getter cancer, then you should not smoke, which is a contrapositive of this conditional.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Bonnie,

The mistake is saying that you shouldn't smoke. From smoke cancer we can't draw anything from smoke. That's a mistaken negation. We can't just negate the sufficient and draw a conclusion based on that.

I hope that helps!