kntombat wrote:
Sajjad1994, could you please share the OE for this question as and when possible, I would love to know where I went wrong.
Explanation
The argument has two premises. The first premise suggests that being at home does not require being in one's house, because one can be at home without being in one's house:
Premise (1): Home, House
The second premise suggests that being in one's house does not require being at home, because one can be in one's house without being at home:
Premise (2): House, Home
These two premises, when combined, justify a conclusion whereby neither condition requires the other:
NOT TRUE: (House ↔ Home)
The conclusion in the stimulus, however, only rejects half of this negation:
Conclusion: NOT TRUE: (House → Home)
The conclusion is properly supported by the second premise only, showing that the sufficient condition can occur in the absence of the necessary condition. Indeed, if the stem had asked us to describe the relationship between the argument's conclusion and its claim that one can be in one's house without being at home (premise 2), the correct answer choice would have been (A) - the claim in the second sentence is required to establish the conclusion.
The claim in the first sentence, by contrast, has no relevance to the conclusion as stated. For that claim to have the same evidentiary relevance, the conclusion should have stated, "So, one's being in one's own house is not required for one's being at home."
Answer: C
Explanation Credit: PowerScore