Causation Correlation/ Sufficient Necessary Reversals/

[Demi]

Hi,

I've noticed a flaw that seems to be either a correlation/ causation issue or a necessary/ sufficient issue. However, I'm having a hard time understanding the concrete difference between the two. Can you please explain?

What are the differences between, "Mistakes necessary characteristics for sufficient ones" Takes for granted that a characteristic important for an outcome will ensure that outcome" and "Takes for granted that having characteristics important for an outcome is enough to reasonably expect that outcome"

All of the quotes above seem to mean the same thing to me -- A->B is not B->A.

Thank you,
D

[tommywallach]

None of these are formal logic terms, so don't use the arrows. The arrows are only for when you're saying something causes something else. What you're describing are FLAWS. Flaws don't get written down using logic that way.

A necessary condition means something is required for an outcome:

You must have 10 dollars to get into this club.

A sufficient condition means something is ENOUGH to ensure an outcome:

If you have a GPA of 3.4, you are automatically accepted into our program.

"Mistakes necessary characteristics for sufficient ones" --> means author confuses the two

"Takes for granted that a characteristic important for an outcome will ensure that outcome" -- this is outside of sufficient/necessary. A characteristic that is important for an outcome is NEITHER sufficient nor necessary (it's close to necessary, but we need the exact words to make it definitively necessary).

"Takes for granted that having characteristics important for an outcome is enough to reasonably expect that outcome" - same as above

So the three are ALMOST the same, but the latter two open the door to something just shy of necessary.

-t