PT154 · S2 · Q17 Consultant: The mayor shouldn't adopt

The conclusion is a quick red flag, since it's saying we should do something, not shouldn't. But potentially they could still be pretty logically similarly to the original argument by giving us premises that are like, "After all, if he stops practicing and X happens, something bad. If he stops practicing and X doesn't happen, something bad." The easier way to kill this answer is that the two premises don't have opposite triggers. In the original, it was if it succeeds, something bad if it fails, something bad This argument's premise triggers are if he stops if he loses any ground Those aren't opposites. The 2nd one was chaining onto the first one.

The conclusion is potentially fine, but we need a pair of binary conditionals for our evidence. If self-publishing goes well, this bad thing happens. If self-publishing goes poorly, this bad thing happens. Instead the two premises just bring up separate considerations that aren't linked by some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" binary.

The conclusion is potentially fine, but we need a pair of binary conditionals for our evidence. If selling his collection goes well, this bad thing happens. If selling his collection goes poorly, this bad thing happens. Instead the two premises just bring up separate considerations that aren't linked by some "damned if you do, damned if you don't" binary.

The conclusion is that someone should do something, not shouldn't, so it starts off with a big red flag. This argument does go off a pair of binary premises, but it's not a damned if you do, damned if you don't combo. It's a "if we do X, bad thing ... if we don't do X, good thing". if wait longer, bad thing. if call now, good thing. Thus, should call now. The original argument was more like, if X goes this way, bad thing. if X goes the other way, also bad thing. Thus, should not do X.