#10 - Only people who are willing to compromise should

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True—SN. The correct answer choice is (E)

When we see the word “only,” we might consider the following classic conditional statement: (sufficient) only if (necessary). That is, the phrase “only if” introduces the necessary condition.

Statement 1 (rephrased): People should use mediation only if they can compromise:

• mediation willing to compromise

Contrapositive: If people are unwilling to compromise, they should not use mediation:

• Not willing to compromise should not use mediation

Statement 2 (rephrased): Litigation should be pursued only if one is sure of being right:

• litigation sure to be right

Statement 3: If a conflict’s based on ideology, then people are unwilling to compromise.

• ideological conflict not willing to compromise

Now we can link Statement 3 with the contrapositive of Statement 1, to create the following chain relationship:

• ideological conflict not willing to compromise should not use mediation

The inference above is reflected in correct answer choice (E), which basically states that if someone’s conflict is based on ideology, that person should not use mediation.

Answer choice (A) is incorrect; we cannot presume that those who don’t use mediation will always use litigation (as litigation is the sufficient condition that requires one to be sure that one’s position is correct). Answer choice (B) is also incorrect; the stimulus provides no information about the people who have non-ideologically based conflicts, or what their best course of conflict resolution might be. Answer choice (C) deals with those who have ideological conflict, but all we know of this group is that they are unwilling to compromise—we have no way to assess their level of self-assuredness. As for answer choice (D), the stimulus provides no information about the people who are sure that they are correct. We know that this is necessary, according to the stimulus, if they are to choose litigation, but being self-assured does not necessarily rule out mediation, so this answer choice is incorrect.

[skiiam]

Hello, I just have a quick question.

I read somewhere on the forum of a Powerscore staff member indicating that "should" in a sentence does not define a conditional relationship since it is not absolute.

But, in the question #5 of 2-11, the first two conditions of the stimulus both include "should", and in fact, the first conditional statement ("Only people who are willing to compromise should under mediation to resolve their conflicts") is required to answer the question and is considered a conditional statement.

So I guess my question is, does "should" indicate a conditional relationship all the time or only in particular times. I find this quite confusing. OR were statements in this question conditional because they included the term "only" in the sentences (making the relationship absolute in some sense?;necessary condition indicator)

The question where "should" was not considered as a conditional statement was Question #3 of 2-62. Was it because the sentences did not have any absolutes and instead have non-absolute words like "many"?

Thanks

[jeff.wren]

Hi Skiiam,

The verb "should" doesn't in-and-of itself indicate a conditional relationship (the way that the verb "must" does, for example) because it doesn't indicate that one thing is necessary for another. It only makes a recommendation, but does not imply a certainty.

You can have a conditional statement that contains the verb "should" in one of the conditional terms, which is what happens in q. 5 on p. 2-11. The conditional indicator words in the first two sentences are "only people who" and "only when."

While the list of sufficient and necessary indicator words on p. 2-7 is a good starting point in spotting and diagramming conditional reasoning, ultimately what you want to recognize is whether a sentence tells you that one thing guarantees another thing occurring.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Jeff

[Adam4551]

Hello,

I understand the relationships between the different variables.

But why are we specifically finding the contrapositive for the first condition only?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Adam,

Great question! We include the contrapositive only for the first conditional for brevity, because that is the only contrapositive needed to support the statement in the correct answer choice. When you do a question such as this it may not be necessary to diagram all the statements. How could you know which statements are helpful and which are superfluous? One clue is the conditions shared in common between the first and third conditional statements. Let's take a step-by-step look at your possible analysis of this problem.

1. Mediation requires compromise.
2. Litigation is only for when you're certain you're correct.
3. Conflicts based on ideology mean no compromise possible.

Once you notice the conditional structures and language in the statements above, pause and ask yourself what types of connections could be possible. Are any terms or ideas shared in common between multiple statements? Yes. Statements 1 and 3 both include the idea of compromise, so let's evaluate them first.

• 1. Mediation requires compromise. M C
  3. Conflicts based on ideology means no compromise possible. CBI C

Can we connect these conditionals right now? There appears to be a connection involving compromise, but we cannot see it unless we take the contrapositive of one or both statements. Let's do both here:

• 1. M C Contrapositive: C M
  3. CBI C Contrapositive: C CBI

There are two possible statements we can make:

• Combine conditional statement 1 with the contrapositive of conditional statement 3: M C CBI
  In plain language this means, "Mediation only works for conflicts not based on ideology."
  
  Combine conditional statement 3 with the contrapositive of conditional statement 1: CBI C M
  In plain language this means, "If people have conflicts based on ideology, mediation will not work."

Notice that the two inferences above are logically equivalent to each other:

• M CBI is the contrapositive of CBI M

The latter of the two statements above matches answer choice (E).

In conclusion, when you notice conditionals, describe them; consider diagramming them. Look for possible connections. Work with these conditionals to prephrase possible inferences. In the event that your work with these connected conditionals does not lead you to the correct answer, consider engaging with other information in the stimulus or double-checking to make sure your analysis is correct.

I hope this helps!

[KSL]

I am struggling with identifying conditional reasoning, even on a question in the conditional reasoning section. I diagramed compromise—— mediation. How am I to know that I need to add on indicators and shuffle the stimulus around?

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, KSL! The presence of common conditional reasoning indicators, like "only people who" (a necessary condition indicator phrase) should be a signal to you that conditional reasoning is present, and it should allow you to diagram that reasoning in a way that lets you make connections and draw conclusions. Use the indicators to help you establish the correct relationships! That's a big part of what that lesson is all about, using the linguistic, structural clues to break down and analyze the arguments. Be mechanical about it, and practice practice practice!

[CrystalN]

I came to the same answer differently, however. Is my thought process correct?

M=mediation WC=willing to compromise L=litigation BI=based on ideology
M WC
SCP L
BI ~WC

Because I saw WC in statements 1 and 3. I used the CP of one to combine the common terms
M WC
BI WC


BI WC
WC BI CP

M WC BI

Then I found the CP of the combined condition
BI WC M

Is this way also correct? Also are my terms correct?

[Adam Tyson]

Everything you did with regard to the first and third claims in the stimulus is correct, and is essentially the same process that we described in the official explanation. Well done!

The only error I see is in your diagram of the second claim, about litigation. The "only" in that sentence indicates that being sure that your position is correct is the necessary condition, not the sufficient condition. Fortunately that turned out not to matter since the correct answer had nothing to do with that claim, but you should still look it over again just to be sure you will avoid making that mistake on other questions.

[annabelle.swift]

Hi! I'm having trouble understanding the reasoning behind why answer choice A is wrong that was provided in the original post. Why was litigation brought up?

Is it ok to rule out choice A just because I couldn't find support for it through my diagrams? Thank you!