Let’s take a look at this stimulus. We can see the pattern of reasoning is that the sufficient condition is not actually met (though they are unprofitable, country parks are not a business), so that means that the necessary condition (closing) doesn’t necessarily follow.
In correct answer A, we see the above happening. Since the documentary series attracting a small audience is not prime-time, we don’t have enough reason to conclude it should be canceled.
In both of the above, the sufficient condition is met in part, but not in entirety. For the condition to be considered fulfilled, it needs to be met completely.
In B, something else is happening. Instead we’re being given a setup with a necessary condition (must meet air quality standards) and told the company should be given an exception to that condition because it makes bicycles along side cars.
This doesn’t include a sufficient condition that is only partially met, and doesn’t end by saying that therefore, the necessary condition doesn’t necessarily follow. What’s happening in B is a different pattern of reasoning.
Hope this helps!
Gabriela-DiazMay 21, 2020
Could you please help provide more clarity on this. I am not seeing the difference between A and B. They are both concluding an action does not have to be taken (dont cancel show and dont need to meet standards) based on the fact that the premises (documentaries and OSEKA producing bikes) do not meet the sufficient condition. Please help clarify. Thank you
