Stallworth claims that she supported the proposal to build a new community center. If Henning also supported that pro...

shongedzai on January 30 at 03:32AM

not sure why this is wrong.

can someone explain to me how to solve this problem?

2 Replies

on January 30 at 09:55PM

Hello!

The stimulus is setting up the following conditional statement:

If Stallworth and Henning both support the proposal, then the government will approve it.

S and H - - - - - - - > GA

We are then told that the government did not approve it. This sets up our contrapositive.

not GA - - - - - - - > not S or not H

Here is the only proper conclusion we can make: either Stallworth, Henning, or both failed to support the bill. At least one of them is mistaken or lying.

So, what error does the author make? The author concludes that Henning is at fault. It is just as possible that Stallworth is at fault!

Two options are equally likely, but the author concludes one of them without justification. Which answer choice makes the same error? Take a look at A.

If the accident did occur on Aylmer Street, then Morgan didn't witness it.

AS - - - - -> not MW

If Morgan witnessed the accident, then it wasn't on Aylmer Street.

MW - - - - - -> not AS

The TV news claimed that Morgan witnessed the accident, and that the accident occured on Aylmer Street. As we know, both of these things cannot occur. One or both of the TV news' claims are incorrect.

The author concludes that the claim that Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window is incorrect. However, isn't it also possible that the accident didn't occur on Aylmer Street? The author has chosen one of two possible conclusions without justification. This is a similar flaw to that in stimulus.

shongedzai on January 30 at 11:39PM

thank you!!!