2994

[acc0520]

Hi,

I can't understand the right answer.
1) where "University L" come from?
2) I think the verb should be "may", since the nuance of the conclusion..it has "may"..why this thought is wrong?

Thanks!

[noah]

Can you please post the text of the question? We have a lot of similar questions out there, and our numbering system can be a bit wonky. Thanks!

[cobyerez79]

P: The government asserts that, during periods of high-alert, at least some of the civil liberties to which we are accustomed must be sacrificed in the interest of public safety.

(A): (A sacrifice of certain civil liberties may result in student protests.)

(A): (Any sacrifice of civil liberties will result in protests by the students at University L.)

C: The government holds a position that may result in some student protests.

Hey Noah, I answered the first assumption, but it said that the second was right.

[noah]

P: The government asserts that, during periods of high-alert, at least some of the civil liberties to which we are accustomed must be sacrificed in the interest of public safety.

(A): (A sacrifice of certain civil liberties may result in student protests.)

(A): (Any sacrifice of civil liberties will result in protests by the students at University L.)

C: The government holds a position that may result in some student protests.

Hey Noah, I answered the first assumption, but it said that the second was right.

Thanks for posting the question text.

That's a tricky one. The issue is that the government will sacrifice some civil liberties. Let's imagine that's the liberty to travel outside the country. With the first answer, it's possible that that specific liberty is not one of the certain ones that may lead to student protest.

With the second answer, if we know that any sacrifice will lead to a protest at this particular university, then we know that the government's position, if enacted--and there's where' the "may" in the conclusion comes in--will lead to a student protest.

That makes sense?

[Turismo1]

Thanks for writing your explanation, but I still dont' get it.

The conclusion says "the government holds a position that may result in some student protests".

I don't see how the assumption stating "a sacrifice of certain civil liberties may result in student protests" is incorrect. Couldn't these "certain civil liberties" fall within the "some of the civil liberties to which we are accustomed" mentioned in the stimulus?

Kinda confused here.

[noah]

Thanks for writing your explanation, but I still dont' get it.

The conclusion says "the government holds a position that may result in some student protests".

I don't see how the assumption stating "a sacrifice of certain civil liberties may result in student protests" is incorrect. Couldn't these "certain civil liberties" fall within the "some of the civil liberties to which we are accustomed" mentioned in the stimulus?

Kinda confused here.

The issue is with the "certain," because we're no closer to getting to the conclusion than we were before. Consider this:

Jim states that he will rebel against any rule, therefore, Jim holds a position that may result in him rebelling against his business partner.

That argument has a gap, which is whether having a business partner leads to rules.

Now look at this:

Jim states that he will rebel against any rule, and certain sorts of relationships involve rules. Therefore, Jim holds a position that may result in him rebelling against his business partner.

We're still left wondering whether the business partnership will lead to rules.

Can you explain it now?

[ptraye]

Thanks for writing your explanation, but I still dont' get it.

The conclusion says "the government holds a position that may result in some student protests".

I don't see how the assumption stating "a sacrifice of certain civil liberties may result in student protests" is incorrect. Couldn't these "certain civil liberties" fall within the "some of the civil liberties to which we are accustomed" mentioned in the stimulus?

Kinda confused here.

Noah,

1. how can the premise be rearranged so that the first assumption is correct?

or

2. how can the conclusion be rearranged so that the first assumption is correct?