P1: "Unless our nation redistributes wealth, we will be unable to alleviate economic injustice and our current system will lead inevitably to intolerable economic inequities."
"Unless" introduces the necessary condition and the negation of the other part of the sentence is the sufficient condition. So the necessary condition here is "our nation redistributes wealth:"
==> NRW
The negation of the other part of the sentence, i.e. "we will be unable to alleviate economic injustice and our system will lead inevitably to intolerable economic inequities," is our sufficient condition (remember when negated "and" becomes "or"):
AEI = able to alleviate economic injustice not IEI = will not lead inevitably to intolerable economic inequities
P1: AEI or not IEI ==> NRW not NRW ==> not AEI & IEI
P2: "If the inequities become intolerable, those who suffer from the injustice will resort to violence to coerce social reform."
SIRV = resort to violence to coerce social reform
P2: IEI ==> SIRV not SIRV ==> not IEI
P3: "It is our nation's responsibility to do whatever is necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform."
Our correct answer is answer choice (B), i.e. "It is our nation's responsibility to redistribute wealth." How do we conclude this?
Well, P3 states that it is our nation's responsibility to do whatever is needed to alleviate conditions that would give rise to violence.
From the contrapositive of P2 we know that if those who suffer from injustice will not resort to violence, then the inequities have not become intolerable.
The sufficient conditions of P1 are AEI or not IEI. Thus, we can connect the contrapositive of P2 to the second part of P1 to conclude that the nation redistributes wealth, like so:
Not SIRV ==> not IEI ==> NRW
The nation redistributing its wealth is, therefore, the ultimate necessary condition to make sure that those who suffer from injustice will not resort to violence. Thus, since it is the nation's responsibility to take whatever measures necessary to alleviate conditions that would give rise to violence, it is the nation's responsibility to redistribute wealth.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
FlavioJanuary 30, 2016
I did an extra step, which apparently leads me to the same conslusion of redistributing wealth.
P1: AEI âž¡ï¸ NRW not NRW âž¡ï¸ not AEI
P2: not AEI âž¡ï¸ IEI not IEI âž¡ï¸ AEI
P3: IEI âž¡ï¸ V not V âž¡ï¸ not IEI
P4: not AEI âž¡ï¸ V not V âž¡ï¸AEI
not V âž¡ï¸not IEIâž¡ï¸AEIâž¡ï¸RW
nikorasuOctober 13, 2017
I was caught up in attempting to diagram premise 3, what made you not attempt to diagram premise 3 and how can I know in the future skip that step?
HaylyeOctober 20, 2017
@mehran ^ I was stuck doing the same any answers to his question?
rweyerFebruary 14, 2018
Premise 3 is a pretty concrete statement, there is no need to try and write it ( you technically already did by the 2nd premise).
P3: "It is our nation's responsibility to do whatever is necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform."
The biggest thing about these statements all depends on how you read them.
the biggest factor in the third premise is "necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform." which is exactly the same as saying to not RV from the 2nd premise.
MehranFebruary 27, 2018
@nikorasu @Haylye not sure I would agree @rweyer here since you are correct that P3 is also a conditional statement that can also be diagrammed but it is really just invoking the first two premises, which allows you to conclude that it is the nation's responsibility to redistribute wealth.
But you can diagram this sentence.
"It is our nation's responsibility to do whatever is necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform."
NASIRV ==> NRTDI
NASIRV = necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform NRTDI = nation's responsibility to do it
Since we know that redistributing wealth is necessary for alleviating conditions that would give rise to violent attempts at social reform, we can say that it is the nation's responsibility to do it, i.e. redistribute wealth.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
sharpen7March 5, 2018
Why did you negate IEI?
sharpen7March 5, 2018
Notes: My question above is referencing premise 1.
EleazarSeptember 21, 2018
Kind of helps. Do you have a more hard and fast rule on when you use different variables for similar concepts?
MehranSeptember 25, 2018
@Eleazar the rule is only use the same variable when you are diagramming if it the same concept.
yuetnganJuly 14, 2019
So which one is the conclusion in the stimulus?
RaviJuly 30, 2019
@yuetngan,
There isn't a conclusion in the stimulus.
We have a few diagrammable statements:
/DW - >IEI
IEI - >V
/DW - >IEI - >V
/V - >/IEI - >DW
We're then told that it's the nation's responsibility to do whatever is necessary to prevent violence. This triggers the sufficient condition of the contrapositive, so we know that DW (distributing wealth) is necessary.
Thus, (B) is the conclusion that we can push out from the information we have in the stimulus.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
Brett-LindsayJuly 7, 2020
Hi @Ravi,
Wouldn't the final sentence in the stimulus be considered a conclusion?
"It is our nation's responsibility to do whatever is necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform."
It doesn't have any noticeable indicator words, but isn't he telling us what we should do? I thought that the final opinion - something we could insert a "therefore" in front of - would be our conclusion?
VictoriaJuly 9, 2020
Hi @Brett-Lindsay,
You are correct that our conclusion is usually something that we can insert a "therefore" in front of. However, the final sentence of this passage is not a conclusion; rather, it is a general principle.
There are three ways that you can tell this:
(1) It can be read as a standalone principle.
This statement doesn't require any supporting information to be true. You could say to someone that "it is our nation's responsibility to do whatever is necessary to alleviate conditions that would otherwise give rise to violent attempts at social reform" without any evidence to back up your claim. It is just a general principle that applies to the nation.
(2) It doesn't connect to the premises in the way that a conclusion should.
Logically, the conclusion should include something about economic inequities as both the premises refer to this. This is especially true as the final statement links back to the previous statement re violent attempts at social reform.
(3) The question stem asks us to identify the conclusion that the statements in the passage commit the politician to.
The wording of the question suggests that the politician's statements commit them to a conclusion that they have not claimed. Therefore, the final statement is not the conclusion that the question stem is looking for even if we were to conceptualizer it as a sort of subsidiary conclusion.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Brett-LindsayJuly 21, 2020
Hi @Victoria,
That's brilliantly explained. I would never have thought of the first 2 points you describe.
I only just noticed your response, and after having completed S/N & quantifiers, it probably makes even more sense.
Thank you very much.
VictoriaJuly 25, 2020
Hi @Brett-Lindsay
I'm so glad to hear that my explanation helped you better understand the question and think about the statement in a new way.
