72 LR Two Question 23
- « 72 LR Two Question 22
- 2676 of 3815
- 72 LR Two Question 24 »
Comments
Hi Dave!
I think I understand why A) is wrong, I just want to make sure I'm graphing the conditionals correctly. Would it be something like:
"No actor represented by the agent Mira Roberts has ever won an important role in a major movie." = "If you're an Actor under Mira Roberts, then you've never won an important role in a movie" = "A --> not I"
"Since every actor represented by Ms. Roberts had at least one important acting role last year, it is clear that none of those actors worked in a movie last year." = "Therefore, if Ms. Roberts' actors had important roles, then they weren't important movie roles." = "A --> not I"
So for option A), would it basically be the same conditional relationship twice? Sorry for the long question
What you've got is largely correct. (A) is very close to the argument in 23! The tricky part is that (A) relies on a shift from important roles in major movies to important roles, which is a shift our argument did not make (in both premises, we're talking about profits, not, for example, profits and wholesale profits).
Does that help?