52 LR Two Question 10
- « 52 LR Two Question 9
- 1456 of 3815
- 52 LR Two Question 11 »
Comments
Okay so this is where I’m getting hung up with conditional statements with logical reasoning when I have had such a good time using them in the logic games.
Here, Sam’s argument can be diagramed like this:
Evidence:
If Comp comm —> decreased interactions
Assumptions:
If decreased interactions —> dissolution of bonds AND
If decrease interactions —> NOT create lasting bonds
Conclusion:
Therefore, if comp comm —> dissolution of bonds AND
If comp comm —> NOT create lasting bonds.
Conclusion contrapositives:
If NOT dissolution of bonds —> NOT comp comm, AND
If create lasting bonds —> NOT comp comm
Choice E:
If NOT comp comm —> create lasting bonds
But i don’t understand how this works in relation to conditional statements as i’ve Learned to use them in the logic games. In logic games, only the contrapositive can be assumed to be true. So just because I think that result y will occur by trigger x, the only other thing I know is the contra positive, that if i don’t get result y, i didn’t get trigger x.
So how can i assume so much here? How can I assume that just because Sam’s argument says what will happen WITH computer communication, that he is saying anything about what happens without computer communication?? His whole argument is suggesting a cause for a phenomenon... his argument isn’t about what happens in the world without that cause.
HELP!!! Thanks!
You've left out the salient part of Samuel's claim: that the people in question would otherwise be interacting in person. That factor is how we know Sam thinks that (E) is true; he says it! If it weren't for these danged computers, people would be interacting in person. That they are not interacting in person is his reason that the social bonds are being dissolved. Strong bonds thus require personal interaction.
Computers → Not Interacting In-Person → Hurts Bonding
Healthy Bonding → In-Person Interaction → No (danged) Computers
Ahhhhh thank you!! Okay now I see two things:
First, I was not correctly translating the sentence containing the phrase “If A then B, otherwise C”. Which should translate to “A then B” AND “NOT A then C”. So it was that pesky word “otherwise” that was throwing me off in my understanding of logical statements.
So the evidence was:
Computers —> private & anon ; AND
Not computers —> interact
Also, I know that if I had used the negation test, I would have spotted that this was a necessary assumption to the argument even without translating it all.
Answer Choice E: If not comp comm —> create stronger bonds
Negate test translation: If comp comm —> create stronger bonds
Negate test translation interpretation: the negated statement would destroy his argument, so it is necessary for him to agree with the original statement