In the following sentence, "migrations bring about the intermingling of ideas," was diagrammed as: migrations is the sufficient condition and the intermingling of ideas is the necessary condition. I read this as the reverse. If M brings about (or leads to, or causes) II, wouldn't it be necessary and II be sufficient? Can you please explain why it was diagrammed the way it was in the video?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
M is the sufficient condition here. M bringing about (or leading to) II is similar to DSC leading to M as articulated earlier in the same sentence.
I also find that it is helpful to rewrite statements such as these as if/then statements to make it easier to visualize and understand the logic being employed.
In this case, the logic does not make sense if you write it as an if/then statement with M as the necessary condition.
"If there is an intermingling of ideas, then there must have been a migration."
This doesn't make sense because there are plenty of other phenomena which would cause an intermingling of ideas.
In this way, the occurrence of a migration is sufficient for the intermingling of ideas, but not necessary.
"If there is a migration, then there will be the intermingling of ideas."
This makes more sense as the passage notes that a migration leads to the intermingling of ideas. A migration can cause the intermingling of ideas but the occurrence of the intermingling of ideas is not dependent on the occurrence of a migration.
I hope this helps clear things up a bit for you! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
