Thanks for the question! I can’t see the example 1 to which you refer for some reason, but yes, “always” introduces a necessary condition. Consider, for example, the statement that swans are always white. We can rephrase this in terms of “all,” if that’s helpful, since if swans are always white, that means that all swans are white. This means that if it’s a swan, it’s white, or to diagram it out:
swan —> White
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
Ghaython December 31, 2021
I thought that all is a sufficient statement to that extent why is it being set as a necessary for questions 1. Sufficient concludes the necessary. Thus why are we placing the always as the necessary and not the sufficent?
Please explain even in the video and online it says "all" is for sufficient conditions.
Thank you please explain!
Ross-Rineharton January 3, 2022
Hi Ghayth. I apologize but I'm not sure what you mean when you said "all" is "being set as a necessary for question 1." Are you referring to Shunhe's explanation?
If so, Shunhe was simply translating the sentence "Swans are always white" to "All swans are white." Those sentences mean the same thing, so they should be diagrammed the same way. You are correct, "all" refers to sufficient conditions, so we would diagram "All swans are white" to "Swan --> White." "Swans are always white" would be diagrammed the same way. Shunhe translated the sentence to show how "always" introduces necessary conditions (in this case, "white."
Some test-takers find it helpful to do this sort of translation when they are unsure how to diagram a conditional statement. The above example could also be translated to "If it is a swan, then it is white."
