Keith on August 6 at 04:28PM
I read through the other threads for an explanation but came up lacking.
I was able to get the correct answer but do not understand what the flaw is exactly. What I am reading is:
P1: have not proven the fire was started by campers
P2: have not proven the fire was started by lightning
C: therefore, have not proven the fire was started by campers or lightning
But this leaves open the possibility that it could still be proven that it was campers or lightning that caused the fire. It almost feels like there is a typo in the question stimulus, as if the conclusion should read:
"So the investigators CAN not prove that the blaze was caused by campers or lightning."
This replaces the the "have" with a "can" and rules out possibility that campers or lightning could still be proven to be the cause of the fire. This, then is a recognizable logical fallacy.... just because we haven't done something yet, doesn't mean we won't be able to do it in the future.
What am I missing?
Shunhe on August 6 at 05:08PM
Keith on August 6 at 09:11PM
Shunhe on August 7 at 05:47PM