Q2 - Many people do not understand

[sumukh09]

Question 17 is a flaw question.

Core:

understanding others requires self understanding ---> those who lack self understanding are incapable of understanding others

Looking at this from a conditional logic perspective will allow us to gain further insight on what flaw is committed.

UO = understanding others
SU = self understanding

Premise: UO --> SU
Conclusion: ~SU --> ~UO

The flaw should be glaring after notating the argument in conditional logic terms -- the conclusion is merely the contrapositive of the premise. And of course, restating the conclusion in different terms of one of the premises is a flaw, namely, it's presupposing something that the argument sets out to prove.

E) says exactly this.

Incorrect answers:

A) is wrong because it doesn't commit the flaw of mistaken reversal

B) irrelevant

C) no blame is assigned to anyone

D) nope - "self understanding" is used consistently throughout the argument

[maryadkins]

Great breakdown of the argument! You're right.

Let me know if anyone is still confused. Glad to help clarify further.

[WaltGrace1983]

I was really thinking that there would be some gap between "impossible," as in unable to attain understanding at this specific time, and "incapable," as in inherently and 100% unable to attain understanding.

I really wanted to make (A) work (because it had to do with a necessary condition) but I should have known that the question wouldn't be so nitpicky as #2.