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, 2019

Please explain B

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

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

Already have an account? log in

Serra on May 26, 2019

“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, 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!