gdk800 wrote:Every political philosopher of the early twentieth century who was either a socialist or a communist was influenced by Rosa Luxemburg. No one who was influenced by Rosa Luxemburg advocated a totalitarian state.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must on the basis of them also is true?

(A) No early-twentieth-century socialist political philosopher advocated a totalitarian state.
(B) Every early-twentieth-century political philosopher who did not advocate a totalitarian state was influenced by Rosa Luxemburg.
(C) Rosa Luxemburg was the only person to influence every early-twentieth-century political philosopher who was either socialist or communist.
(D) Every early-twentieth-century political philosopher who was influenced by Rosa Luxemburg and was not a socialist was a communist.
(E) Every early-twentieth-century political philosopher who did not advocate a totalitarian state was either socialist or communist.



The answer mentioned is A but i need explanations for option E

In short, the argument doesn't tell you that soc/com are the ONLY ones who do not support the totalitarian state.

If A leads to B, it is also possible that there are other groups also leading to B. Then it does not immediately follow that the reverse is true and B also leads to A.

From the argument you know that if soc/com, then --> influeneced by rosa --> no totalitarian

But you cannot automatically reverse the direction of the arrows and say that

if no totalitarian ----> soc/com.
It is possible to be "no totalitarian" by other means: for example, it is possible that other groups, such as democrats also do not advocate totatlitarian state.
Democrats --> no totalitarian
Thus, if all you know about a philospoher is that he does not advocate a total state, that philosopher may be a Socialist/comunust, OR a democrat, or another group altogether.

the only reverse relationship you CAN infer about this sort of A--> B relationship is that if not B, then not A.

Not A <-- Not B.

Meaning that if a philosopher DID advocate the totalitarian state, then he or she cannot be a soc/com - otherwise they woud not have been totalitarian in the first place.

Hope this is not too confusing.

this question doesn't make sense to me. For A to be the answer ALL political philosophers of the early 20th century would have to have been influenced by Rosa. But the statement clearly states only 2 types - the socs and the coms were influenced. No info about any other types being influenced by Rosa.

in a "must be true" framework I find it hard to believe how A can be the OA when there is no info to suggest that ALL pol. philosophers of the world, irrespective of their type, who lived in the early 20th century were in fact influenced by Rosa. Because only then can you rationally make a statement like A, coz there may have been other Rosas out there in the early 20th century who did their own stuff and influenced some of the pol. philosophers and some of them may have advocated total., unlike the good philosophers who got preached by Rosa.

gmat1011 wrote:this question doesn't make sense to me. For A to be the answer ALL political philosophers of the early 20th century would have to have been influenced by Rosa. But the statement clearly states only 2 types - the socs and the coms were influenced. No info about any other types being influenced by Rosa.

in a "must be true" framework I find it hard to believe how A can be the OA when there is no info to suggest that ALL pol. philosophers of the world, irrespective of their type, who lived in the early 20th century were in fact influenced by Rosa. Because only then can you rationally make a statement like A, coz there may have been other Rosas out there in the early 20th century who did their own stuff and influenced some of the pol. philosophers and some of them may have advocated total., unlike the good philosophers who got preached by Rosa.

Read A carefully - it talks about early-twentieth-century socialist political philosophers, not ALL philosophers in general.

sneaky.. sneaky, sneakyy... damn i missed that - thanks very much! got to keep my eyes peeled....