It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic endeavor the government refuses to support it does not allow, as one can ...

Jesse on July 12, 2015

Explain

Could you explain this? Thanks!

1 Reply

Melody on July 16, 2015

Alright so let's break down this argument:

Our conclusion is that it is absurd to claim that any artistic endeavor that the government refuses to support it does not allow.

Why? When you rephrase the claim, it becomes an absurd statement: No one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy.

So what's happening here? We are given a Sufficient and Necessary statement: if an artistic endeavor does not get support from the government, then it is not allowed by the government.

not S ==> not A

Then we are told that this claim is absurd because when rephrased the statement makes no sense: If someone is allowed to create art, then they received government support.

A ==> S

As you can see, the rephrasing is merely the contrapositive of the first claim.

Answer choice (A) follows this same pattern of reasoning.

Our conclusion is that it is absurd to claim that any driver who is not arrested does not break the law.

Why? When you rephrase the claim, it becomes an absurd statement: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.

So: if a driver is not arrested, then they did not break the law.

not A ==> not L

Then we are told that this claim is absurd because when we rephrased the statement it makes no sense: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.

L ==> A

So, just as in the argument, we are given a Sufficient & Necessary statement and told it is absurd to its contrapositive. Therefore, answer choice (A) has the same pattern of reasoning as the argument.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.