I had a questions about some conditional logic phrasing that I can't wrap my head around. This type of logic appeared in as an answer choice in a match the reasoning question about archaeology or ancient civilization, something like that:
taking the nonexistence of something as evidence that a necessary precondition for that thing also did not exist
Abstract:
y is a necessary precondition for x.......x requires y....... x therefore y
Answer says: ~ x therefore ~ y
Illegal negation
Alternate Example:
Spanish 1 is a necessary precondition for Spanish 2..... Span2 requires Span1... Span 2 therefore Span 1.
Saying "Spanish 2 does not exist on Shelia's transcript, so I'm going to treat that as evidence that Spanish 1 also does not appear on her transcript" doesn't make sense at all. Invalid argument due to illegal negation.
I think the term "necessary precondition" is tripping me up. Am I thinking about the conditional logic correct?