P states that if an elected official is to be effective, then they NEED the support of a political party.
P1: E ==> SPP not SPP ==> not E
P then concludes since the independent candidate does not have the support of a political party, she cannot possibly be effective.
P2: not SPP
C: not E
Thus, P is invoking the sufficient condition (i.e. not SPP) of the contrapositive to conclude the necessary condition (i.e. not E), so this is a valid argument.
Q then tries to show the error in P's argument. Q claims that through P's reasoning, "our current legislator, who has the support of a political party, ought to have been effective, but he has not been."
Q is misinterpreting P's statements to mean that "SPP" is be sufficient to prove "E." However, this is not what P stated. P said that "SPP" is a necessary condition to be "E," not the other way around. Remember, you can't just reverse. You must reverse and negate.
Thus, answer choice (E) is correct. It clearly states that the argument "mistakenly interprets P to be claiming that a factor assures, rather than is necessary for, a legislator's effectiveness."
Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions.
grimadeauMay 11, 2020
For weakening questions I have not been diagraming them and have been doing well. On this question I suppose I got it wrong because I didn't break it down and map it out like the instructor. My question is when do you know/ or when should you know to diagram a question?
