Q1 - country manufacturing

[cvfh17]

can somebody explain question number 1 please? i don't get it
thanks!

[sumukh09]

We have a set of conditional statements in the stimulus and the question asks us what can be concluded on the basis of these conditional statements.

1: Fully Utilized ---> Industrial Growth ---> New Capital Investment

2: Reduction in Interest Rate ---> New Capital Investment

Can we conclude A? No because we don't know anything about any exceptional cases in which interest rates might be reduced.

B) is correct because "precondition" means a necessary condition and a necessary condition for industrial growth is new capital investment and a reduction in interest rates triggers new capital investment. So if we have a reduction in interest rates then we have new capital investment which is a precondition for industrial growth.

C) out of scope

D) Not provable given the information in the stim

E) is reversed

[maryadkins]

Good explanation! I'd also add that (C) uses the word "should" which is not going to be something we know from the argument. Also, to elaborate, (D) says:

new capital investment + rising interest rates --> no industrial growth

This twists the logic of the argument around and is unsupported.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

We have a set of conditional statements in the stimulus and the question asks us what can be concluded on the basis of these conditional statements.

1: Fully Utilized ---> Industrial Growth ---> New Capital Investment

2: Reduction in Interest Rate ---> New Capital Investment

Can we conclude A? No because we don't know anything about any exceptional cases in which interest rates might be reduced.

B) is correct because "precondition" means a necessary condition and a necessary condition for industrial growth is new capital investment and a reduction in interest rates triggers new capital investment. So if we have a reduction in interest rates then we have new capital investment which is a precondition for industrial growth.

C) out of scope

D) Not provable given the information in the stim

E) is reversed

If the first logic chain is supposed to be a compound condition statement can you please identify what the necessary and sufficient condition(s) is?

[doneill3]

I'm not suite sure I understand why the first conditional is not: ~NC----->~IG. The actual statement uses "Without" which I thought we translated to "If not."
I had the whole thing like this: If FU---->[~NC---->~IG] If RIR------->NC. I got to the correct answer, but am still confused as to how I did. Is my diagram correct?

[roflcoptersoisoi]

We have a set of conditional statements in the stimulus and the question asks us what can be concluded on the basis of these conditional statements.

1: Fully Utilized ---> Industrial Growth ---> New Capital Investment

2: Reduction in Interest Rate ---> New Capital Investment

Can we conclude A? No because we don't know anything about any exceptional cases in which interest rates might be reduced.

B) is correct because "precondition" means a necessary condition and a necessary condition for industrial growth is new capital investment and a reduction in interest rates triggers new capital investment. So if we have a reduction in interest rates then we have new capital investment which is a precondition for industrial growth.

C) out of scope

D) Not provable given the information in the stim

E) is reversed

If the first logic chain is supposed to be a compound condition statement can you please identify what the necessary and sufficient condition(s) is?

The first logical chain is an embedded conditional, not a compounded one, so it reads as: MCFU --> ( IG --> NCI)

[Smokyearlgrey]

We have a set of conditional statements in the stimulus and the question asks us what can be concluded on the basis of these conditional statements.

1: Fully Utilized ---> Industrial Growth ---> New Capital Investment

2: Reduction in Interest Rate ---> New Capital Investment

Can we conclude A? No because we don't know anything about any exceptional cases in which interest rates might be reduced.

B) is correct because "precondition" means a necessary condition and a necessary condition for industrial growth is new capital investment and a reduction in interest rates triggers new capital investment. So if we have a reduction in interest rates then we have new capital investment which is a precondition for industrial growth.

C) out of scope

D) Not provable given the information in the stim

E) is reversed

If the first logic chain is supposed to be a compound condition statement can you please identify what the necessary and sufficient condition(s) is?

The first logical chain is an embedded conditional, not a compounded one, so it reads as: MCFU --> ( IG --> NCI)

To elaborate, does embedded mean that

If A is true, then another conditional statement is true (B ➔ C)

But compound is like a serious of conditional statements

A ➔ B ➔ C (A triggers B and B triggers C)

Am I on the right track?

Thanks very much!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, you nailed it.

And don't worry that this terminology even comes into play much. It's rare to have a "nested/embedded" conditional within one side of a rule.

Normally when people say "compound" in relation to conditionals, they mean that the left side or right side has an "AND" to it.

Like if we said
A and B --> C

We might call that a "compound trigger"

A -> B -> C, meanwhile
we would call a Chain. It's really two separate conditionals (A->B and B->C) that we've chained together.