# Byrne: One of our club's bylaws specifies that any officer who fails to appear on time for any one of the quarterly ...

SarahA on May 26, 2019

Please explain B

Could someone please translate what answer choice B is saying into simple terms?

Replies
Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

SarahA on May 26, 2019

â€œPresumes, without providing justificationâ€

The argument assumes

â€œIf certain events each predict a certain result,â€
If F or M â€”-> S

â€œThen no other event is sufficient to produce that result.â€

If not F & not M â€”-> not S
If S â€”- F or M

S exists. Not M exists.

C: T â€”-> F

shunhe on January 3, 2020

Hi @Ellen,

Sure, thanks for the question. (B) is saying that the argument assumes that if certain events each produce a particular result, then no others are sufficient to produce that result. If you want to diagram B:

Certain events each produce a certain result - > ~Another event can produce that result

In the context of this question, the two events in question are not appearing on time for a quarterly board meeting and missing two of the monthly general meetings. The author concludes that Thibodeaux didn't show up on time for a quarterly board meeting, since he's never missed a monthly general meeting. But this is only one of the bylaws; another bylaw might have other provisions for suspension, such as if an officer shows up drunk to a meeting. This would be an example of another event that would produce "that result," which is suspension. In other words, we're given

Miss meeting or late - > Suspension

But the author concludes

Suspension - > Miss meeting or late

Which confuses the sufficient and necessary terms. Hope this helps!