PR #1: The workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages.
We know unless introduces necessary and the other part of the statement negated is the sufficient condition so we would diagram this sentence as follows:
not S ===> WI not WI ===> S
PR #2: In order to increase the workers' wages, Bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries.
This sentence would be diagrammed as follows:
WI ===> SS not SS ===> not WI
Conclusion: So, some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold.
The conclusion is that SS exists. However, the only premises stated are two general principles that would need to be invoked in order for us to conclude SS.
Using the transitive property:
not S ===> WI ===> SS
Therefore, either "not S" or "WI" would be the answer we are looking for because either one of these would 100% guarantee the conclusion (i.e. SS exists).
Answer choice (C) states "The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike" (i.e. "not S"). This would invoke the sufficient condition of PR #1 (i.e. "not S"), allowing us to conclude "WI," which would in turn invoke the sufficient condition of PR #2 (i.e. "WI"), allowing to us conclude "SS."
As such, (C) would be the correct answer because it would 100% guarantee the conclusion of the argument that "some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold."
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
MattJanuary 31, 2015
How would D fall fit into this argument? Necessary assumption?
NazFebruary 3, 2015
I'm not sure I understand your question. You want to know how (D) would be the right answer? Remember, don't focus on how the other answer choices can be made correct. Instead, focus on why they are wrong.
The issue with answer choice (D) is that it doesn't strengthen the argument. Just because he has the authority to raise wages to the desired amount, does not mean that the wages WILL be raised. (D) merely states that increasing wages is POSSIBLE.
Don't skip to whether the negation would make the answer choice fall apart before you answer the first prong: does this answer choice help definitively strengthen the conclusion that some subsidiaries will be sold? No.
Plus, you shouldn't be thinking about negations since this is a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise Question.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
calvinJuly 9, 2020
Hello, I was wondering how we can assume that there will be no strike. I understand the transitive property that shows us that, not S ===> WI ===> SS, but how can we use the necessary condition (SS) to show that the sufficient condition exists (not S)?
calvinJuly 9, 2020
nvm i got it
VictoriaJuly 14, 2020
Glad to hear you've figured it out! Let us know if you have any further questions.
naieka99August 6, 2020
Can you please explain why B is wrong?
VictoriaAugust 6, 2020
Hi @naieka99,
Happy to help!
This is a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question. So, we are looking for the answer choice which allows the conclusion to be properly drawn.
We know that the workers will go on strike unless management increases their wages.
Not S --> IW Not IW --> S
We also know that if Bell is going to increase their workers' wages, then they will have to sell off some of their subsidiaries.
IW --> SS Not SS --> Not IW
The passage then concludes that Bell will sell some of their subsidiaries.
Not S --> IW --> SS Not SS --> Not IW --> S
To properly conclude that Bell will sell some of their subsidiaries, we need to prove that Bell will increase their workers' wages, as illustrated by the transitive chain above.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect because of the contrapositive chain above. Refusing to increase worker wages is sufficient for a strike and necessary for not selling subsidiaries. It doesn't guarantee that subsidiaries will be sold as the passage concludes; therefore, it does not help justify the conclusion.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
RemeDecember 16, 2024
Hello, can someone explain to me why we the answer that we have is correct? because in the passage Sufficient assumption is not going on strike and the fact that the passage state that it is necessary for them not to go on strike is their wages to be higher. and at the end it states some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold. therefore that the necessary condition has been met to increase their wages but not sufficient to conclude that the wages will be raised or that once that happened they won't go on strike. so how does stating the sufficient premise again that they won't go on strike make it guaranteed that they won't go on strike ???
