Q-22 In casual conversation, people experience little...

[gabesn]

Hi there!

So this is a necessary assumption question, which asks us to find an assumption that cannot be false in order for the conclusion to be true. However, by my lights this looks a lot like a sufficient assumption question. Why? Well, consider the form of the argument:

My reconstruction of the argument is:

P1: ~PD--->CFT
Conclusion: AF--->CFT

(PD=Psychological discomfort, CFT=Consider flaw trivial, AF=Admit to flaw)

The answer choice, D, seems to say: AF--->~PD, which in turn seems to be an assumption sufficient to prove the argument. Have I gone wrong here?

[RyanT361]

Hello,

I am also having an issue with this. I chose C instead of D. It almost seems that the answer choice D is bi-conditional?

[Laura Damone]

Hi there!

OK, I had to do a lot of digging to find this question because it's not an officially released test available on LawHub or as a pdf. But I did find a version of the question. I'm copying answers C and D here to be sure that we're talking about the same choices!

C) In casual conversation, people admit to having character flaws only when they must.
D) In casual conversation, people most readily admit to having a character flaw only when that admission causes them little psychological discomfort.

D is not a biconditional. It has the indicator "only when" which is equivalent to "only if." Both introduce the necessary condition. So, D is saying: Admit --> little psych. discomfort.

The stimulus, on the other hand, does give us a biconditional: trivial <--> little psych. discomfort.
From that, it concludes that if you admit to a flaw in casual convo, you must think it's trivial: admit --> trivial.

That assumes that if you admit it in casual convo, it's causing you little psych. discomfort. That's the only way to conclude that you think the flaw is trivial. Thus, D is, as the original poster said, sufficient. But it's also necessary. The two categories aren't mutually exclusive! In fact, when a Nec Assum stimulus is conditional like this one, I expect the correct answer will be both sufficient and necessary, and I can even use the "split the conclusion" technique.

Step 1, ID the Conclusion: admit --> trivial

Step 2, Split it apart: admit trivial

Step 3, Build inward using the premises: admit little psych discomfort --> trivial

Step 4, Bridge the gap: admit --> little psych discomfort

Hope this helps!