Q18 - Everyone who is a gourmet

[Raiderblue17]

Ok I just CANT seems to get these, and its frustrating because I KNOW that these are EASY points that I'm guessing on.

So can somebody give me a detailed step by step look into how to do this.

I have the chain as : GC > VFS > ~BF

Good Cooks like a variety of foods and spices, and they don't like bland food.

Conclusion to be drawn: Good Cooks don't like bland food
AND if you like bland food you aren't a good cook.

This is the same as the conclusion stated in the argument.

So now how can I not seem to match these up correctly.

PLEASE HELP

[alexg89]

You have diagrammed it correctly. We need a contrapositive that yields the conclusion.

BF > ~GC


A : Contains flawed logic and cannot be right, just because the auction has a wide variety of artists doesn't mean that the paintings from the Huang Collection are as well.

B: Paintings HC > Abstract

Contrapostive yields conclusion ~A > ~HC

This is the correct answer and uses the same method to deduct its conclusion.
Note:This is not an exact match (the original linked 3 pieces) but it is the closest. I would advise that you review the other answer choices before moving on.

C: Flawed Logic

D: Notice the subtle shift from postimpressionist to popart? That makes this answer choice incorrect.

E: HC Painting > MWA > ~P

Contrapostives P > ~HC Painting & P > ~MWA

Conclusion: ~P which you can infer nothing from

[courtney_chrusch]

Can someone please go through this? I do not understand how B is correct. I am struggling with the translations. Please help!

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure thing.

The original argument is basically:
p1: A --> B
p2: B --> C
--------------
c: ~C --> ~A

To get this most easily, you have to know how to translate "No A's are B's".

If we say "No NFL players are female", how would that look as an "if/then"?

If you're NOT an NFL player, then you're female
or
If you're an NFL player, then you're NOT female

No A's are B's = All A's are not-B's

(in a similar manner, Not All A's are B's = Some A's are not-B's)

So in this argument,
p1: gourmet cook --> enjoy wide variety
p2: enjoy wide variety --> do not prefer bland

At this point, we should see the chain:
gourmet cook --> enjoy wide variety --> do not prefer bland
and its contrapositive
DO prefer bland --> do not enjoy wide variety --> not gourmet cook

conc: DO prefer bland --> not gourmet cook

------------------

Again, it's a valid argument:
It provides two conditional premises that form a A -> B -> C chain,
and then it concludes ~C --> ~A

If any of these answers do not have two conditional premises that chain together, we'll stop reading.

If we DO get an A -> B -> C chain, we'll know to expect ~C -> ~A in theh conclusion.

------------------

(A) Not a valid inference.
The first two ideas don't create a perfect chain, because the first idea is saying "if you're a painting in the HC, you'll be put up for auction next week."
The second idea is saying "if you are the collection of paintings to be auctioned next week, you're by a wide variety of artists".
We can't infer that each painting in the HC is by a wide variety of artists, nor can we infer that the set of painting in the HC is by a wide variety of artists.
It's possible that all the paintings in the HC are by the same artist. That wouldn't contradict anything we're told.

(B) YES! Two premises chain together and the conclusion is ~C -> ~A
chain: in HC -> abstract -> not included in next week's auction.
conc: included in next week's auction --> not in HC

(C) These premises don't chain together.
p1: in HC --> superb
p2: in HC --> not by Roue

Move on.

(D) These premises don't chain together.
p1: Postimpression and in HC --> auctioned next week
p2: Pop art and in HC --> not auctioned next week

Move on.

(E) These premises chain, but the conc doesn't match.
p1: in HC and auctioned next week --> major work
p2: major work --> no price can adequately reflect value

We need a "~C -> ~A" conclusion, or
"If the price DOES adequately reflect value, then you're not an HC painting slated to be auctioned next week"

Hope this helps.