There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law, for there is no individual freedom without social integri...

on October 22 at 04:08AM

Why not A?

I am not understanding how the answer is not A. This one really confuses me. Please help. I don't understand how the answer is B. Thanks in advance!

2 Replies

on October 22 at 04:55PM

Hello @lerondagates,

First, let's identify the conclusion.

Conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law.
no RL - - - - - - > no IF

Premise: There is no individual freedom without social integrity.
no SI - - - - - - - > no IF

We are asked to find an assumption that makes the conclusion logical. This means that, as it stands, the conclusion cannot be properly drawn. However, we can be confident in the premise. To make the conclusion logical, we need an assumption that links our premise to our conclusion. In other words, we need a connection between RL (which is introduced in the conclusion) and SI (which we already know to be necessary for individual freedom).

B gives us the connection that we need. I've combined it with our premise. There are no holes in this reasoning, and no way to deny the conclusion.
no RL - - - - -> no SI - - - - - -> no IF

Therefore: no RL - - - - - - -> no IF

I'll explain why A is incorrect. I'll do the same thing I did above, and combine the assumption with the premise.
no SI - - - - - > no RL and no IF

This does not prove our conclusion. It does not show that IF is dependent on RL. Rather, they are both dependent on SI.

Why was I able to ignore the third statement? It had nothing to do with the conclusion. They did not have any common terms, so I knew that this statement was included as a distraction. This is a difficult question, but if you keep practicing examples like this until you are comfortable, you will have a very strong understanding of sufficient and necessary conditions.

on October 22 at 07:41PM

WOW, Thank you. That makes so much sense now. I have to keep practicing these.