Hi vanquisher,Great question, and it's a classic CR trap.
A and B look identical, but they're actually mirror images that say different things. Let me line them up in plain "if-then" form.
Write both as conditionals:
-
(A): unaffected by the need for profit →
has absolute integrity.
-
(B): affected by the need for profit → does
not have absolute integrity.
Notice that (B) is not a restatement of (A) - it flips
both halves. In logic these are
inverses of each other, and an inverse is
not logically equivalent to the original. Knowing what makes something
have integrity (A) does not tell you what makes something
lack it.
Why this matters for the argument: the premise tells us profit
did affect the decisions in most independent films. To reach the conclusion "they lack absolute integrity," you need a rule that starts from
affected and lands on
no integrity. That's exactly
(B). Choice (A) starts from
unaffected, so it never fires here - trying to use it would be denying the antecedent.
A quick everyday version to feel the gap:- Statement A-style: "If you
don't eat junk food, you're healthy."
- Statement B-style: "If you
do eat junk food, you're
not healthy."
These clearly aren't the same claim. The A-version tells you nothing about a junk-food eater - they might be unhealthy, might not. Only the B-version lets you conclude "this junk-food eater is unhealthy."
Since our premise is the "did eat junk food" case (profit
did affect the films), only
(B) delivers the conclusion.
Answer: Bvanquisher
isnt statement A and B are logically same?