- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 471
- Joined: Mar 10, 2017
- Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:28 pm
#40378
Hi Mike,
I'm not sure if I agree with the diagram of the second sentence. You may infer that an explanation requires an accurate description, but the speaker is not trying to make this claim. Rather, the speaker is stating that if you had sufficient knowledge, you could give an accurate explanation of the causes of an action.
For that reason, I'm not sure how you can derive R--->E--->AD from the final sentence. This interpretation seems to make the final sentence a lot more complicated than intended. I would agree with Ron above that the correct and simplest way to read this statement is rational → justification (reasons for the action) essential part of explanation.
I'm not sure if I agree with the diagram of the second sentence. You may infer that an explanation requires an accurate description, but the speaker is not trying to make this claim. Rather, the speaker is stating that if you had sufficient knowledge, you could give an accurate explanation of the causes of an action.
For that reason, I'm not sure how you can derive R--->E--->AD from the final sentence. This interpretation seems to make the final sentence a lot more complicated than intended. I would agree with Ron above that the correct and simplest way to read this statement is rational → justification (reasons for the action) essential part of explanation.