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

Serra on May 26 at 10:29PM

“Presumes, without providing justification”

The argument assumes

“If certain events each predict a certain result,”
If F or M —-> S

“Then no other event is sufficient to produce that result.”

If not F & not M —-> not S
If S —- F or M

S exists. Not M exists.

C: T —-> F

Shunhe on January 3 at 04:35PM

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!