Q15 - According to the proposed Factory Act

[weiyichen1986]

Hi, I am having trouble on this question.

I diagram it in this way: operate->Class B --> No postpone.

If this is right, why is there are two different provisions? I thought only one provision, which is class B? Am i reading it wrong?

Thanks for the help.

[timmydoeslsat]

Hi, I am having trouble on this question.

I diagram it in this way: operate->Class B --> No postpone.

If this is right, why is there are two different provisions? I thought only one provision, which is class B? Am i reading it wrong?

Thanks for the help.

You have diagrammed it correctly.

There are 2 provisions.

One provision shows us a requirement of Operating.

Another provision shows us a requirement of being class B.

Both of these provisions ultimately require "No postpone."

[kaseyb002]

How can I know that the certain state of affairs is unacceptable? What's wrong with an automobile manufacturer not being able to postpone safety inspections? Does "unacceptable" just mean "not compatible"? When I first read it I thought it meant "undesirable".

[timmydoeslsat]

How can I know that the certain state of affairs is unacceptable? What's wrong with an automobile manufacturer not being able to postpone safety inspections? Does "unacceptable" just mean "not compatible"? When I first read it I thought it meant "undesirable".

This answer choice is really just rephrasing the sentence.

Operate AF ---> B

For instance, this first provision of this factory safety act would show us the unacceptability of Operate AF and ~B. Those two state of affairs are incompatible. They are logical contradictions.

This factory act has 2 provisions that we are aware of:

Operate AF ---> B

B ---> ~Postpone

When you combine these two statements, you can see how they jointly show us that Operate AF is incompatible with Postpone.

It shows us the unacceptability of an event "Postpone" with the Operate AF.

[kaseyb002]

How can I know that the certain state of affairs is unacceptable? What's wrong with an automobile manufacturer not being able to postpone safety inspections? Does "unacceptable" just mean "not compatible"? When I first read it I thought it meant "undesirable".

This answer choice is really just rephrasing the sentence.

Operate AF ---> B

For instance, this first provision of this factory safety act would show us the unacceptability of Operate AF and ~B. Those two state of affairs are incompatible. They are logical contradictions.

This factory act has 2 provisions that we are aware of:

Operate AF ---> B

B ---> ~Postpone

When you combine these two statements, you can see how they jointly show us that Operate AF is incompatible with Postpone.

It shows us the unacceptability of an event "Postpone" with the Operate AF.

Okay so from your explanation it seems that I misunderstood what "unacceptable" meant there. Thanks!

[uhdang]

Refreshing from the last post in 2012.

Here is the Core:

According to the proposed Factory Safety Act, a company operates an automobile factory, then that factory is a class B factory + This Act states that if class B factory, punctual inspections are done.
==>
a factory that manufactures automobile would not be able to postpone its safety inspections.

@ Classic case of A => B, B => C, so A => C.

A (operates automobile factory) ==> B (Class B Factory)
B (Class B Factory) ==> C (punctual inspection)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A (a factory that manufactures automobile) ==> C (Not able to avoid inspection)

There is a chain of reasoning out of two conditional statements reaching to the conclusion, assuming punctual inspection is the same as not being able to postpone safety inspections.

===== Here are the answer choice analyses =====

A) Exactly what this argument is doing. Pointing out how two provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act jointly entail (The first and second conditional statement from above) the unacceptability of a certain state of affairs (Not able to avoid inspection)

B) They are talking about two DIFFERENT elements of the same Act. These are NOT different interpretations of the same Act.

C) “existing legislation” is not provided here, so we don't know whether this Act is incompatible with it.

D) Two different provisions are rather connectable, not conflicting.

E) No “analogous” situation has been introduced.