#13 - Nations that have little interaction with one another

[Adam Tyson]

Answer E does appear to be consistent with our conditional chain, lunsandy, but that's not enough to answer this question. Does that answer make sense in the blank, logically completing the chain? It does not, because the next logical step has to be something to do with sympathy and justice. Otherwise it makes no sense that our author brought them up in the last premise! Answer E is what we call a "True but Wrong" answer, in that the information in it is true but it fails to answer the question asked of us. Answer B is the better choice because it makes more sense in that blank space due to it connecting sympathy and justice back to the earlier premise.

We see that sort of thing a LOT in Reading Comp, especially in Main Point questions. Many of the answers will be true claims found in the passage, but they will NOT be the overall Main Point. They will be true, but wrong.

Try plugging answers B and E into the blank space, and see which one makes more sense in context. I think you'll find B to be much better!

[lunsandy]

Hi Adam!

You have been super helpful with answering all my questions thus far, thank you!
And yes, I plugged in B and E and B is definitely the better candidate because the "sympathy and justice" links to our premise that allows us to fill in the blank that "it follow that nations have interactions..."

Thanks a lot!

[mrdmass725]

I am not understanding this explanation can anyone assist?

[mrdmass725]

Is it because of A(little interaction) is dependent on B(knowledge of needs and problems) and since C( sympathy and justice) is also dependent on B therefore without Some of A it is difficult to perform C?

[Adam Tyson]

I think the best way to analyze this one is through conditional reasoning analysis, mrdmass725, and we walked through that earlier in this thread. See my diagram, and then Eric's, and see if those make sense to you.

Your analysis is slightly off, in that little interaction does not depend on knowledge of needs. Rather, little interaction guarantees little knowledge of those needs. Put another way, in the contrapositive, knowledge of the needs of other nations depends on some interaction with those nations. Sympathy and justice required that knowledge, which in turn required interaction, so we can infer that sympathy and justice require interaction. If no interaction, then no sympathy and justice.

Check out those diagrams and see if they shed enough light on it for you!

[mrdmass725]

I think the best way to analyze this one is through conditional reasoning analysis, mrdmass725, and we walked through that earlier in this thread. See my diagram, and then Eric's, and see if those make sense to you.

Your analysis is slightly off, in that little interaction does not depend on knowledge of needs. Rather, little interaction guarantees little knowledge of those needs. Put another way, in the contrapositive, knowledge of the needs of other nations depends on some interaction with those nations. Sympathy and justice required that knowledge, which in turn required interaction, so we can infer that sympathy and justice require interaction. If no interaction, then no sympathy and justice.

Check out those diagrams and see if they shed enough light on it for you!

The diagrams from earlier did not make sense to me but I think I understand it a little bit.