B is the correct answer here. The principle, if diagrammed, should be “Great ? Original and Far-Reaching Influence.” Remember, we can only conclude that the necessary condition of a conditional statement is true. We cannot conclude that a sufficient condition of a conditional statement is true. So, using the above principle, we could use evidence that an artwork is great to conclude that it must be original and have far-reaching influence.
Alternatively, we could take the contrapositive of the conditional statement, which would be “NOT Original or NOT Far-Reaching Influence ? NOT Great.” We could then use evidence that an artwork is either not original or doesn’t have a far-reaching influence to conclude that it is not great. That is precisely what answer choice B does.
Answer choices A and C attempt to claim that the sufficient condition of the original conditional statement is true. D attempts to claim that the necessary condition of the original conditional statement is NOT true (which is also impermissible). And E attempts to claim that something has popular appeal, which is not discussed in the original conditional statement.
KempNovember 9, 2022
Can you explain how in the directions when it says, "if the above statements are to be treated as true what argument best follows", why we can not treat the sufficient and necessary as both being true?
I am failing to grasp why we cannot conclude that the sufficient condition of a conditional is true. Any explanation on this would be greatly beneficial to me.
Emil-KunkinNovember 12, 2022
Hi, a conditional is a rule. To assume a rule is in place means that we have to follow that rule, so, for example, we could assume that if you are president, you are over 35. To assume that rule is true does not mean you are the president. To treat a conditional statement as true is not to assume the conditional happened. It is to assume the rule is in force.
