#13 - If the play were successful, it would be adapted as a

[desmail]

Hi,

I understood the flaw in this question to be a mistaken negation, if we deny the sufficient condition (play being successful) we can't say for sure what the outcome will be.

I know why (E) is correct, but what is (A) actually saying? What is the distinction between neither nor and not both? Doesn't neither nor mean not both? (Ex: He will have neither cake nor ice cream = not both). I would appreciate any help on this.

Thank you!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for the question--in that one, the author's actual flawed conclusion is that the play:
i) will not become a movie, and
ii) will not be at the festival.

Incorrect answer choice A correctly asserts that the author conclude that neither one will happen. As we know, this conclusion was flawed.

The answer choice goes on, however, to claim (incorrectly) that the author's conclusion should have been as follows: never will both i) and ii) occur together (leaving open the possibility that one or the other could have occurred).

So, this answer choice is points out the author's flawed conclusion, but then tries to provide another flawed conclusion in its place.

That is a very tough answer choice! Great question--please let me know if this clears it up.

Thanks!

~Steve

[desmail]

Oh okay, i see what you're saying. Let me just double-check to make sure:

The flawed conclusion the answer is trying to provide in place of the existing one is that if ~s-->then movie and festival cannot BOTH occur. But, that could still mean that if ~s-->then movie, or ~s--> then festival. This would still be flawed to say because if the sufficient condition is denied then we can't say for sure what follows, both actually could still occur together.

Am I on the right track here? Thanks for your help!

Dana

[Steve Stein]

Hi Dana,

That's exactly right--tough one! Thanks for your response, and for the great question!

~Steve

[Kp13]

Hello,

I don't understand why answer A) is wrong.

Could you please explain how to arrive at the correct answer here?

The way that I was reading the stimulus, I thought it contained a Mistaken Negation flaw, and that's why I picked A).

Thank you,

[David Boyle]

Hello,

I don't understand why answer A) is wrong.

Could you please explain how to arrive at the correct answer here?

The way that I was reading the stimulus, I thought it contained a Mistaken Negation flaw, and that's why I picked A).

Thank you,

Dear Kp13:

This is basically a mistaken negation problem, and E is a fancy way of saying that. With answer choice A, there's the false idea that one of the two things must fail, i.e., either fail at movie adaptation or fail to be revived at the festival. But why does it have to fail at all? Maybe Al Pacino will come out of nowhere ("different sufficient condition") and fund/support BOTH of those things, the adaptation and the revival.
Hope that helps,

David

[Kp13]

Hi David,

Thank you! I think I can see how answer E) does make sense now. It basically says that the argument fails to acknowledge that either one or both, adaptation or revival of the play, COULD still take place.

However, answer A) still appears attractive to me because I think it "corrects" the mistaken negation error in the stimulus and therefore identifies the flaw, which is that the last sentence in the stimulus fails to complete the counter-positive:

IF Not adapted as a movie AND not revived at the festival --> THEN Play Not Successful.

The last sentence in the stimulus basically creates the flaw, which is remedied by answer A).

Could you pls help me see exactly how this answer should be understood properly, so that I can avoid making this mistake in the future?

Thanks!!!

[David Boyle]

Hi David,

Thank you! I think I can see how answer E) does make sense now. It basically says that the argument fails to acknowledge that either one or both, adaptation or revival of the play, COULD still take place.

However, answer A) still appears attractive to me because I think it "corrects" the mistaken negation error in the stimulus and therefore identifies the flaw, which is that the last sentence in the stimulus fails to complete the counter-positive:

IF Not adapted as a movie AND not revived at the festival --> THEN Play Not Successful.

The last sentence in the stimulus basically creates the flaw, which is remedied by answer A).

Could you pls help me see exactly how this answer should be understood properly, so that I can avoid making this mistake in the future?

Thanks!!!

Hi Kp13,

Do you mean "contrapositive" where you say "counter-positive" above, by the way? --Anyway, I may not understand what you're saying, if I may politely note that. I'm not sure how answer (A) "remedies" anything. If an answer identifies a flaw, that doesn't necessarily "remedy" anything.
The last sentence of the stimulus does not really even try to complete the contrapositive, it's just an error. If it had said "no adaptation and no revival, therefore no successful play", that might work, but it doesn't even try to do that. And answer choice (A) just goes nowhere, since if it said either ""no adaptation OR no revival", or ""no adaptation AND no revival", it would be wrong either way, since you can't conclude either of those things, just because there's no play.
Hope that helps,

David

[Sherry001]

Hello ;
I chose the right answer for this question but spent longer than I should have eliminating answer choice A . Here is why, could you please help me get rid of it ?

If the play suc --> it would have been movie or revived at the festival
C: it was not succ--> it would neither become a movie or revived at the festival


A) it fails to draw the conclusion that the play will not be adapted as a movie AND be revived at the festival, rather than that it will do neither .

* I just saw this answer telling me that the author didn't "flip it" because the contrapositve of or would have been and if the author flipped them . So if I am wrong, what is this really saying ?

D) I see the flaw a mistaken negation or reversal ( I confuse the two). Which is what makes E correct.


Thanks so much
Sherry

[Steve Stein]

Hey Sherry,

That's a good question. The stimulus opens with a conditional statement, that if a play were successful it would be adapted as a movie or revived at the festival:

Adapted as movie
Play successful or
Revived at festival


In the conclusion, the author has negated all conditions, but failed to reverse them, making the statement below a Mistaken Negation:

Adapted as movie
Play successful and
Revived at festival


Incorrect answer choice (A) claims the author's mistake was to conclude that neither of the necessary conditions would take place, and should instead have concluded that they wouldn't both occur.
But this is not accurate: knowing that the play wasn't successful doesn't allow us to properly conclude anything about whether it would be adapted or revived.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the author only concludes that the play will neither be adapted nor revived—the author does not presume that the play has no other avenues available.

Correct answer choice (E) basically says this: sure, the play wasn't successful, so it didn't meet that sufficient condition. But maybe there are other sufficient conditions that would lead to the plays success.
In other words, the play wasn't successful, but that doesn't mean that it won't be adapted or revived.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear—thanks!

~Steve