The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express
Malikon February 7, 2020
For question #5 why would the correct answer be C instead of D?
For question 5 of the lesson, I got D because it is my understanding that following the rules earlier in the lesson the" and " in the statement needs to be changed to "or". The statement also needs to be negated so changing the sufficient or necessary part of the statement if positive into negative by using "not" and it also needs to be reversed so switching the first part of the statement whether it be the sufficient or necessary part of the statement first to last. But the correct answer C is not reversed and the "and" is not changed to "or". Can you clarify this for me?
Thank you
1 Reply
Skylaron February 8, 2020
@LeekLuu, happy to help.
You seem to understand the rules correctly, but these rules are only applied in order to find the contrapositive of an S->N statement.
We can deduce the following S->N statement from the passage: DFW -> M and I. We then apply each of the rules (reverse, negate, change "and" to "or") in order to find the contrapositive of this statement: Not M or Not I -> Not DFW.
The question asks us what "can be logically inferred." It does not specifically ask what the contrapositive is, so the answer does not necessarily have to be a restatement of the contrapositive.
(C) states: Not M and I -> not DFW. This is correct. Again, we are not asked to find the contrapositive, we are only asked to identify the valid inference. So, if we are told that we have an electorate who is not moral but is intelligent, could we then conclude that the democracy does not function well there? Yes, because we know from the contrapositive that we need either a lack of morality or a lack of intelligence to conclude that the demoracy does not function well, but we don't necessarily need both. Since we have "not M," we can conclude "not DFW" and the "I" is irrelevant.
(D) states: not DFW -> not M and not I. This is incorrect because only the reversal of the contrapositive.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
