All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Therefore, if the press agent told every...
ishadoshiAugust 13, 2019
don't understand
I watched the video lesson and even went through the message boards pertaining to this question, but I STILL haven't understood the question and how we derived the answer. I think maybe I'm not understanding what exactly the question is asking itself. Will it be possible to explain the question how the answer was derived in some other words? Would really appreciate it, thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent said. If the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, the no reporter knows more than any other reporter, and no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. Press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accidents, then it must be true that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.
The argument essentially says that any reporter only gets information about the accident from the press agent, there is no other source of information available. So if the press agent told everything to every reporter, meaning every reporter learned the exact same set of facts, no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters because all of them have the exact same set of info, so no one has anything exclusive to report. The argument makes sense so far.
The argument proceeds by telling us that press agent did not tell every reporter everything, then it follows that some reporter can scoop all other reporters. Well, what exactly does it mean did not tell any reporter everything? Does it mean he told one reporter or few reporters everything and only gave some information to everyone else? Did he tell everything to half the reporters and nothing to half the reporters? Or did he give every single reporter limited information about the accident (not everything), but the scope of this information is exactly the same for every reporter?
The argument only tells us that the press agent did not "tell every reporter everything," which means any one of the aforementioned scenarios could be true. And if the latter scenario is true, and the agent provided the same limited information to every reporter and told everything to no one, then the conclusion is false because again, no reporter knows more than any other reporter and cannot scoop any other reporter.
The correct answer choice (E) accurately describes the flaw in the argument because it fails to consider the possibility that the press agent provided the same information to every reporter, and no reporter knows any more than any other reporter.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any further questions.
HannahNgFebruary 3, 2020
@Irina Wow your clarification helps a lot! I watched the video and still confused but I understood after reading your explanation. One quick question, we have the rule: The N condition of S&N statement and of contrapositive could happen at the same time? Does this rule appy to all situations?
