#14 - University president: Research institutions have an

[Dana D]

Hey Dancing,

As Jeff said, there is no flow or time condition tied to conditional relationships (this is different than cause and effect relationships, which have a temporal structure). Answer choice (A) might seem like it restates the contrapositive, because there is funding practical problem. However, the stimulus only tells us what is sufficient to make funding obligatory - not why people should not fund something. At the very least, research institutions need to fund projects that will have practical applications and improve people's quality of life. However, they could also approve funding for many other projects and deny funding for projects for a variety of reasons. Basically, 99% of the decisions to fund/not fund can't be justified by the principle in the stimulus - the only set of research that this is applicable to is research that will give insight to practical problems improving the QOL.

So the university dean denying the application in answer choice (A) can't use this principle to justify his actions. He can't say "well the project doesn't have to do with practical problems so I had to deny it" because he didn't have to. He didn't have to fund it, but no one made him not fund it - this was his own free will. In comparison, imagine if the project had to do with practical problems that would improve quality of life - his hands would totally be tied, he'd have to fund it. (This is the scenario in answer choice E btw, which is why it's correct).

Hope that helps!

[Dancingbambarina]

Hey Dancing,

As Jeff said, there is no flow or time condition tied to conditional relationships (this is different than cause and effect relationships, which have a temporal structure). Answer choice (A) might seem like it restates the contrapositive, because there is funding practical problem. However, the stimulus only tells us what is sufficient to make funding obligatory - not why people should not fund something. At the very least, research institutions need to fund projects that will have practical applications and improve people's quality of life. However, they could also approve funding for many other projects and deny funding for projects for a variety of reasons. Basically, 99% of the decisions to fund/not fund can't be justified by the principle in the stimulus - the only set of research that this is applicable to is research that will give insight to practical problems improving the QOL.

So the university dean denying the application in answer choice (A) can't use this principle to justify his actions. He can't say "well the project doesn't have to do with practical problems so I had to deny it" because he didn't have to. He didn't have to fund it, but no one made him not fund it - this was his own free will. In comparison, imagine if the project had to do with practical problems that would improve quality of life - his hands would totally be tied, he'd have to fund it. (This is the scenario in answer choice E btw, which is why it's correct).

Hope that helps!

Sadly, I am further confused by the forum at large. I am misunderstanding precisely WHY AC A cannot be construed as a contrapositive. Surely negating the principle would render NOT OBLIGATION as the new sufficient. So I understand why AC A is wrong, as not doing something is not the same as not having an obligation.

But I am unsure (i.e. taking the above into account) the contrapositive would be met if obligation WAS A PART OF A. So my question would be: Would AC A be correct if obligation was added into it?

"A university denies the obligation to
a grant application from a
faculty member for work on a solution to a
famous mathematical puzzle that has no
relation to practical concerns. "


What I'm really driving at here is: Why is the AC A not construed as a contrapositive if "OBLIGATION" is not added in like with the above? I ask in light of not knowing how to decipher between the MN and valid contrapositive in light of AC A if OBLIGATION is added in.

Just to summarize my 2 questions:

1. But I am unsure (i.e. taking the above into account) the contrapositive would be met if obligation WAS A PART OF A. So my question would be: Would the following AC be correct if obligation was added into it?

2. What I'm really driving at here is: Why is the AC A not construed as a contrapositive if "OBLIGATION" is not added in like with the above? I ask in light of not knowing how to decipher between the MN and valid contrapositive in light of AC A if OBLIGATION is added in.


Thank you so much again

[Dancingbambarina]

Hey Dancing,

As Jeff said, there is no flow or time condition tied to conditional relationships (this is different than cause and effect relationships, which have a temporal structure). Answer choice (A) might seem like it restates the contrapositive, because there is funding practical problem. However, the stimulus only tells us what is sufficient to make funding obligatory - not why people should not fund something. At the very least, research institutions need to fund projects that will have practical applications and improve people's quality of life. However, they could also approve funding for many other projects and deny funding for projects for a variety of reasons. Basically, 99% of the decisions to fund/not fund can't be justified by the principle in the stimulus - the only set of research that this is applicable to is research that will give insight to practical problems improving the QOL.

So the university dean denying the application in answer choice (A) can't use this principle to justify his actions. He can't say "well the project doesn't have to do with practical problems so I had to deny it" because he didn't have to. He didn't have to fund it, but no one made him not fund it - this was his own free will. In comparison, imagine if the project had to do with practical problems that would improve quality of life - his hands would totally be tied, he'd have to fund it. (This is the scenario in answer choice E btw, which is why it's correct).

Hope that helps!

Sadly, I am further confused by the forum at large. I am misunderstanding precisely WHY AC A cannot be construed as a contrapositive. Surely negating the principle would render NOT OBLIGATION as the new sufficient. So I understand why AC A is wrong, as not doing something is not the same as not having an obligation.

But I am unsure (i.e. taking the above into account) the contrapositive would be met if obligation WAS A PART OF A. So my question would be: Would AC A be correct if obligation was added into it?

"A university denies the obligation to
a grant application from a
faculty member for work on a solution to a
famous mathematical puzzle that has no
relation to practical concerns. "


What I'm really driving at here is: Why is the AC A not construed as a contrapositive if "OBLIGATION" is not added in like with the above? I ask in light of not knowing how to decipher between the MN and valid contrapositive in light of AC A if OBLIGATION is added in.

Just to summarize my 2 questions:

1. But I am unsure (i.e. taking the above into account) the contrapositive would be met if obligation WAS A PART OF A. So my question would be: Would the following AC be correct if obligation was added into it?

2. What I'm really driving at here is: Why is the AC A not construed as a contrapositive if "OBLIGATION" is not added in like with the above? I ask in light of not knowing how to decipher between the MN and valid contrapositive in light of AC A if OBLIGATION is added in.


Thank you so much again