Q20 - Last year the county park

[b91302310]

I'm confused by this one.

Could any one explain it? Thanks.

[cyruswhittaker]

THe argument says that the park system failed to generate enough revenue. Then it states a conditional rule saying that a business should be closed if it is unprofitable. The reasoning here is that part of the necessary condition in the conditional (business should be closed) following the sufficient condition (if it is unprofitable) is that we're actually considering a business. But since county parks are not businesses, by the contrapositive of the conditional, the necessary condition isn't met, so we can't say that the parks should be closed.

A has a similair pattern of reasoning, saying that the documentary series isn't justified by the reason given to be canceled because it doesn't satisfy the necessary condition (it's not a prime-time series).

[b91302310]

Got it. Thanks!

[Jdanz653]

I'm just curious, is this a valid argument ?

[maryadkins]

You're told that:

Business not profitable --> should be closed

Last year the county park system wasn't profitable.

But it's not a business.

Therefore, the fact that it's unprofitable doesn't justify closing it.

I would call this almost a valid argument, but I'd tweak it to read, "therefore, the fact that it's unprofitable doesn't necessarily mean that it should close, based on this rule (that if it's a business and not profitable, it should close)." Because maybe there's even a rule about non-businesses and being unprofitable that we don't know about.