Q21 - Principle: If one does not criticize

[zhangjiwen325]

During the timed test, I could not figure it out where the loophole is and got lost since the arguement and its applications seemed airtight. However, I can get some sense of it during the review. I think it might be the case that the SAME form of behavior should be the one to emphasize, am I right about this?

Any help would be appreciated!


PS: I actually took the test last December, but I feel like each section of Preptest 77 is different from the one that I took. Furthermore, I could recall that the raw score of the true test would be 102 instead of 101 of this test. So the preptests are not the real ones?

[maryadkins]

The principle is:

If do not criticize a behavior in oneself OR do not vow to stop oneself --> should not criticize another for it

Application:

Shimada does not vow to stop being tardy --> he should not criticize another

You are correct that we don't know if he even IS tardy. (A) solves this problem by telling us that he is regularly tardy.

Tricky one!

To run through the other answer choices:

(B) says the opposite of (A). If he's not tardy, he doesn't have the "behavior IN" himself.

(C) is out of scope because we are not talking about what McFeney is or isn't allowed to do. We are talking about what Shimada is allowed to do.

(D) is the opposite of what we would want. If he criticizes himself, then we cannot conclude that he should not be allowed to criticize Shimada.

(E) is like (B). If he isn't tardy, it does not help our argument that he shouldn't criticize.

And the prep tests are the same as the administered ones. Notice that on this PT, one question was removed from scoring. So while there were originally 102 questions, there are 101 for scoring purposes. Not sure why you remember a different test, though. That's bizarre.

[haeeunjee]

The principle is:

If do not criticize a behavior in oneself OR do not vow to stop oneself --> should not criticize another for it

Since the sufficient side of the arrow is saying "if you do not [criticize] OR [vow]" does this translate to "If you do not criticize AND if you do not vow" (A & B -> C) or "If you do not criticize OR if you do not vow" (A or B -> C)?

I'm asking because I took it as the latter: A or B -> C but now that I'm re-reading it, it seems that grammatically, there might be a difference:

1. If one does not [criticize a behavior in oneself or vow to stop it] --> one should not criticize others (This is how the stim. reads)

2. If one does not criticize a behavior in oneself NOR vows to stop it --> one should not criticize others

3. If one does not criticize a behavior in oneself or DOES NOT vow to stop it --> one should not criticize others

I feel like these the last two are A or B --> C, but the first one seems to combine A and B so that it's A & B -> C. Thoughts?

But if the stimulus is still A or B --> C, then, in this case, we only really needed proof that Shimada is tardy himself (which only answer choice A gives), but we didn't really need the whole "Shimada doesn't criticize himself" part of the answer choice, since we already have that (1) he is tardy and (2) he does not vow to stop it, which combined should be enough to trigger C. We don't really need the fact that he doesn't criticize this behavior in himself. Is my reasoning correct?

[lire.moi]

I would also like to know if the sufficient condition in the stimulus should be translated as AND or OR?

It seems like either one gets you to the correct answer, but would be nice to get professional opinion for future reference.

[ohthatpatrick]

It's technically "and" because the not applies to the whole "X or Y" structure.

If I said,
"If one does not criticize one's own behavior or one does not vow to stop one's own behavior, then one shouldn't criticize that behavior in someone else", then it would be

IF not criticize self OR not vow to stop, THEN not criticize others.

However, this sentence is saying
"If you don't do X or Y", which really means "if you don't do at least one of these".

Pretend I say,
"If I don't get my wife flowers or chocolates for Valentine's Day, she will be disappointed."

I'm really saying I need to get her at least one of those.

If you knew that I didn't get her flowers but were unsure whether I got her chocolates, would you know yet whether she'd be disappointed?

No, we'd still be unsure.

What's happening, formally, is that we're negating an "X or Y" idea, so just like when we negate during contraposing, we're negating the X, the Y, and the "or".

Not (X or Y) = ~X and ~Y

Again, that's because we're saying "It is not the case that I have (at least X or Y)".