#10 - Ms. Sandstrom’s newspaper column describing a strange

[queenbee]

Hi
I just read all the explanations and great commentary on this question. I just wanted to validate something, is the conclusion the entire conditional statement? If that is the case, then I understand why A is the correct answer.

When I read this question, I thought the conclusion was, "Ms. Sandstrom should pay for the damages". That conclusion would follow only if we assume that she knew or could reasonably expect that her column could lead to damages on the property.

I just dont understand why the entire conditional statement is needed for the assumption.
Thank you!

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

It doesn't make a difference whether the conclusion is just the clause "Ms. Sandstrom should pay for this damage" or the entire conditional, because the argument is not different in the two cases. That's because the following argument forms are equivalent:

"Assuming A, we can conclude that if B then C"

"Assuming A and B, we can conclude that C"

In your second paragraph, you indicate that if the conclusion is just the statement about Ms. Sandstrom and not the entire conditional, then we'd need another premise to prove that conclusion...but if the conclusion is just that small statement, then the sufficient condition of the conditional in the last sentence IS a premise. We're always allowed to use the premises already in the stimulus to help prove the conclusion for a Justify question.

Talk of "needed for the assumption" is not helpful in this case because this is not an Assumption question, but instead a Justify question. If answer choice (A) proves the conclusion of the argument (it does), then it's correct.

Robert Carroll