Hi Marce - I saw your reply to Dave in another thread that these questions were from the Workbook, not the Bible, so I went ahead and found the question giving you trouble!
Let's take a look
Number 14 in the LRBW (page 25) begins with Richardson's recent claim that we must do
something in response to the university's current economic crisis. The author then notes that he/she has proposed two responses: lay off some workers, and reduce the budget back to last year's levels. So far, so good.
The problem arises in the conclusion. Here the author claims that following Richardson's advice to "do something" means that the
author's program of action must be implemented immediately. In other words, if Richardson is right that "something" must be done...then that "something"
must be the author's plan.
But does that have to be true? Could we follow Richardson's advice and do something
without doing what the author proposes? Sure! Something can refer to lots of different prospective options, some, or even many, of which don't include what the author wants. That means following Richardson's "do something" call to action doesn't necessarily guarantee that we'll "do THESE THINGS" that the author has proposed.
The flaw we see here hinges on the use, or interpretation, of the word "something." Richardson uses it to mean "we can't sit idly by; some action must be taken." The author, on the other hand, takes it to as an endorsement of "doing the things I propose as that something." But that's not for sure the case.
You can perhaps imagine a real-world scenario, and since I'm sitting in LA typing this I'll give you one that hits close to home
Me: "We really need to do something about this LA traffic."
Elon Musk: "See there folks! Another strong supporter of my plan to dig tunnels under the city for
subterranean travel tubes!"
Me: "...uhh I didn't say
that."
Same relationship between the somewhat vague and the very specific, all based on changing the interpretation of that word, "something."
I hope that helps!
