Based on the passage, it can be concluded that the author and Broyles-González hold essentially the same attitude toward
Estheron May 15, 2018
Example #2
SPP-most-CNG (CNG-some-SPP)
CPP-some-CNG (CNG-some-CPP)
CNG -->WLG
SPP-most-CNG--->WLG
C: SPP-most-WLG
How did you come to that conclusion, shouldn't "most" be switched to "some" since the only way that rule #2 could be satisfied is if you reversed the most statement?
2 Replies
Michelle on May 22, 2018
Hey @Ohemaa
Thanks for your question.
We're looking to make a deduction from a quantifier and a S&N statement. Rule #2 in this lesson states that the relevant quantifier must involve the sufficient variable in the S&N statement. We do not need to reverse the quantifier because the rule of having the "S"in common applies to the S&N statement ONLY. It does not apply to the quantifier!
The deduction "SPP-most-WLG" is made from the following two statements:
CNG - > WLG (S&N)
SPP-most-CNG
As you can see, the common variable here is CNG, which is the S portion of the S&N statement. We're free to make deductions without violating rule #2.
SPP-most-CNG - > WLG
We can leave this as "most" because we do NOT have to reverse the quantifier statement.
As a note, remember the helpful trick in this lesson: if the arrow is pointing away from the quantifier, then we are following Rule 2.
Michelle on May 22, 2018
@Ohemaa its also good to keep in mind, going forward, that quantifier statements do not have sufficient nor necessary components
