63 LR Two Question 22
- « 63 LR Two Question 21
- 2113 of 3815
- 63 LR Two Question 23 »
- You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments
In my mind for some reason I assumed that only one person could get the award. So when the conclusion said Penn shouldn't receive the award I thought to myself the only way Penn would be considered and eventually turned down would be if he was eligible but didn't do enough. So I looked for an answer choice where they both had exemplary records but only Franklin saved a life, and that led me to choose E.
I'm confused about the wording of the conclusion. It states "Penn should not", but the question seems to solve for a case where Penn could not.
I chose B instead of A because of that confusion; since in choice A, Penn simply could not get the award since they would be ineligible, however, in choice B they only should not since they doesn't meet the criteria for someone who should get the award.
Would it be since in choice B, the negation of the last rule (E+B+S -> A) doesn't suggest Penn should not receive the award and thus leaves it questionable whether Penn should or should not receive the award?
Well, I'd push back on whether or not Penn's ineligibility means that she cannot get the award. I mean, she could walk up to the podium and just take it. Then she'd have it.
I therefore submit that the question of eligibility is inherently one of who should get it.
But you may find it more palatable to consider the matter this way: if Penn is not eligible for the award, should she get it?
(B) proves that Franklin should get it, but it does not prove that Penn shouldn't. Consider the following:
People who are insanely rich own houses. Franklin is insanely rich, but Penn is not.
Does that prove that Penn doesn't own a house?
Same thing here!
It's the plain meaning of the words: You can eat Dessert if you eat your Vegetables, but not otherwise.
So if you eat your Veggies then you get Dessert V → D
If you do Not eat Veggies, you do Not get Dessert ~V → ~D