page 139 of LR, top of the page, "anyone who opposes ..."

[aydinm968]

Can someone please illustrate a diagram/model of this problem? the words "anyone" and "everyone" threw me off a big as they made it convoluted that I now think of them having the same effect as "Only if". I would appreciate it if someone could help clarify it for me. Thank you!

[Laura Damone]

Sure thing! "Anyone," "Everyone," and "All," work like "If." So if someone said to you "Anyone with half a brain knows that those pictures are airbrushed," that implies that if someone has half a brain, then they know the pictures are airbrushed.

The argument at the top of page 139 could be diagrammed like so:

Oppose war on Pandora --> NOT Chance of being next president
Previous administration --> NOT Oppose war on Pandora
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chance of being next president --> Previous administration


Note that I changed "Support war on Pandora" to "NOT Oppose war on Pandora" when I diagrammed. That's a legal move, and a helpful one, because it lets me see how the second premise might connect to the first. But if the argument as written was that they did not oppose the war, I couldn't necessarily say that they support it. They could be neutral. So, that move is legal in one direction but illegal in the other direction.

Also note that this is an INVALID argument. Sure, folks in the previous administration didn't oppose the war. So it's true, they meet one criterion for being the next president. But we have no reason to believe that they're the only people who meet that criterion. There might be plenty of folks who didn't oppose the war and have a good chance of being the next pres.

Hope this helps!