#25 - A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Ashpine,

First, you need to keep the two different conditionals separate. They are not mistaken reversals of one another, but are have different conditional terms. Treating indicted and convicted as the same would be a mistake.

We have 50 percent that believe

indicted resign

And 35 percent that believe

resign convicted.

Both conditionals address resignation. But one talks about convictions, while the other talks about indictments. They cannot be combined. We also can't directly compare them, because one tells us what is necessary for a resignation, while the other tells us what is sufficient to require resignation.

Our conclusion confuses a sufficient for a necessary condition. It talks about comparing the percentage of people who think someone should resign if indicted versus if convicted. But we don't know about the people who think that someone should resign if convicted. We know about the percentage who think if someone should resign, they must have been convicted. That's switching the sufficient condition (if convicted) for the required (must be convicted).

Hope that helps!

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

"A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials should resign if indicted for a crime, whereas 35 percent believe that elected officials should resign only if they are convicted of a crime. Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted."

Hello, I don't understand the why the first premise isn't "if indicted for a crime" then "50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials should resign"

I understand the second "35 percent believe that elected officials should resign" then "convicted of a crime"

So, if indicted then 50 percent believe resign and if 35 percent believe resign then convicted, is what I see here.

Can someone please explain this misunderstanding?

Also, can someone further explain the problem with the conclusion. And how exactly and where this problem "confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition."

Thank you.

[Dana D]

Hey Kristina,

I'm not sure I'm seeing your misunderstanding - I think

So, if indicted then 50 percent believe resign and if 35 percent believe resign then convicted, is what I see here.

is an accurate restatment of the stimulus.

As for the flaw, this question relies on you understanding or being able to infer from the stimulus that there are two stages to conviction: inditement (which is charging someone for a crime) and conviction (where they are actually found guilty). Everyone who is convicted has been indited (charged) but not everyone charged is convicted - that's the sufficient v. required condition flaw in the reasoning. The 50% of people who think being charged alone means your should resign will also think being convicted warrants resignation, since conviction necessitates inditement. Yet the stimulus is presenting these percentages of people as two parties with no overlapping beliefs. In reality, more people believe that you should resign if convicted of a crime, because this includes both the 50% inditement-alone-is-sufficient-group and the 35% conviction-required-group think that you should resign if convicted of a crime.

Hope that helps!