Journalist: The new mayor is undeniably bold. His assertions are made with utter certainty and confidence. While thes...

on December 28 at 04:37AM

Totally lost on this

How is this diagrammed and how should I work through it? My work was: CC —> Not I CC —> PP Is A the assumption simply because it is the contrapositive of one of these statements while B is not? Do I include “Bold” in the suf/nec conditions at all? Thank you so much!!

3 Replies

on January 2 at 11:23PM

hello all - hope everyone had the best holiday. just thought I'd pop this question to the top of inbox again since it's been a few days. Cheers, thx!

on January 8 at 03:15AM

Hey guys, would greatly appreciate some help here

Skylar Tuesday at 02:51AM

@kristinsmith04, happy to help.

Personally, I would not diagram this entire passage. Let's work through it by breaking down the premises and conclusion instead:
P: The mayor is bold.
P: The mayor makes assertions with certainty and confidence,
C: These assertions may make the mayor popular with the public, but they show he is not an introspective person.

You may notice a gap in logic here. How do we know that assertions made with certainty and confidence show that the mayor is not introspective? This idea can be diagrammed as: CC -> NOT I and it is what we are looking to prove. The first premise (that the mayor is bold) is irrelevant because it is not mentioned in the conclusion.

Notice that we do not have to ask this same question with regards to public popularity because the passage says the assertions "MAY" make him popular, which means there is a possibility that they may not. However, the claim that these assertions demonstrate the mayor is not introspective is concrete, and our correct answer will justify it.

(A) states that "introspective people do not make assertions with utter certainty and confidence," This is correct because it explains the gap in logic identified above. It can be diagrammed as: I -> NOT CC. You will notice that this is the contrapositive of what we are looking to prove, so it makes its contrapositive valid and thereby explains the logic.

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!