Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy, since wealth is the basis of political ...

SamA February 29, 2020

Hello @Dalaal,

I diagrammed this one a bit differently as well, and you are welcome to diagram in whatever way is helpful to you, so long as you do not commit reasoning errors.

Premise: Large wealth inequality = political power inequality
Premise: Democracy - - - - - > Political power equality
Conclusion: Large wealth inequality - - - - - - - > viability of democracy threatened

Mehran included "not W" in his diagram of the statement "wealth is the basis of political power."

PP - - - -> W
not W - - - -> PP

This is really just a different way to express my first premise. He does not necessarily say that "not wealth" = "large inequalities in wealth." This just demonstrates the relationship between wealth and political power. Mehran wrote it as sufficient and necessary but I did not. This is kind of an unusual question because it is from 1994. Either way you approach it should be ok.

Ryn November 18, 2021

Ok, this makes more sense to me, whew, thanks! The conclusion ends up being valid because you use the contrapositive of the second premise which would be "not political power inequality --> Not Democracy, but then u also have to parse that threaten viability to democracy means that it's not a true democracy, right?

Ryn November 18, 2021

Ok nvm, it doesn't when I go back and read the stimulus, tears*.

Ravi February 8, 2022

The final premise of this argument is the easiest to diagram, so starting there, we get

True democracy—>equal power distribution (not equal power distribution—>not true democracy)

In the premise before this one, the. Author says that wealth is the basis of political power, which means it’s a necessary condition

Power-->wealth (not wealth—>not political power)

From both of these statements, the author concludes that inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy.

Large wealth inequalities—>threaten true democracy

If you look at the terms in the conclusion, large wealth inequalities more or less means not wealth, which is the negation of the necessary condition of our second premise. Threaten true democracy more or less means not true democracy, which is the negation of the sufficient condition of the first premise we diagrammed.

Thus, the basic structure of this argument is

A—>B

B—>C

Combining the two premises, we get

A—>B—>C (not C—>not B—>not A)

Then in the conclusion, we’re told we have not C, therefore not A, so it’s using the contrapositive of our diagram.

E is a perfect match, as it’s a valid argument that has three terms being linked up into a transitive chain, and it’s also using the contrapositive of the chain to arrive at its conclusion.


Premise 1: Good health—>regular moderate exercise (A—>B)

Premise 2: Regular exercise—>adequate leisure time (B—>C)

Conclusion: Repeated encroachments—>interfere with requirements of good health (Not C—>Not A)