Which one of the following is given by the passage as a reason for the difficulty a lawyer would have in determining ...

Ravi on February 1, 2019

@tmorrison10,

Great question. It appears that you're misinterpreting what's being
said in the premises. In the premises, we're told that 1) being
intelligent does not imply that one is wise, nor 2) does being wise
imply that one is intelligent.

We can translate these statements into

1) not (I - >W) = I and /W

2) not (W - >I) = W and /I

These 2 statements basically just mean that you can be intelligent and
not wise, and you could also be wise and not intelligent. It also
allows for the possibility of being neither wise nor intelligent, as
this isn't explicitly prohibited.

The author then says in his own experience, the people he meets have
one or the other of the qualities, but not both.

So the people the author has met are either I and /W or W and /I. We,
therefore, know that there are some people on earth who are

1) I some /W

2) W some /I

The question stem says, "if the essayist's statements are true, then
each of the following could be true EXCEPT"

We're looking for an answer that MUST BE FALSE based on the info we've
been given in the premises. Let's take a look at the answers.

(A) says most people are neither intelligent nor wise. This could be
true, as we're only told about the people the author has met, and this
is presumably a very small percentage of all people on earth.

(B) says most people are both intelligent and wise. This could also be
true, as all we're told is that the people the author has met are
either intelligent and not wise or wise and not intelligent. However,
if the author has only met 100 people, it's still possible that most
of the nearly 8 billion people on earth are both intelligent and wise.

(C) says no one is both wise and intelligent. This could also be true.
We know that no one the author has met is both wise and intelligent,
and it's possible that the rest of the people on earth also fall into
this category. We don't have enough information in the stimulus to
definitively rule this answer out, so it could be true.

(D) says no one is either wise or intelligent. This can be translated to

not (I or W) = /W and /I

This is a direct contradiction of the premise we've been given about
people the author has met. The author has met people who are
intelligent and not wise as well as people who are wise and not
intelligent. Since this is true, then (D) must be false because there
are people who exist who are wise (and not intelligent) and people who
exist who are intelligent (and not wise), and our proof is that the
author has met such people. As a result, we know (D) must be
false/cannot be true, so it's our answer.

(E) says many people are intelligent and yet lack wisdom. This is
perfectly consistent with the fact that the author has met people who
are intelligent and not wise, so this is definitely true based on the
info we've been given.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

LeeLarue on April 13, 2020

Great explanation! Thanks @Ravi!