[General] Confused by a sentence, thanks for the help in advance

[xuzheng]

The sentence goes like "It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed."
I think it is saying some condition already existed before something happened. What I don't understand is this part "only after the condition already existed" What does 'the condition' here refer to? Can anyone help me understand this sentence?

Sincerely,

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think 'the condition' refers to a previously mentioned one and the only one in the sentence is 'a condition', but I am not a teacher.

 

[en_buff]

The sentence is quite confusing, to be honest, and it's pretty hard to tell what is supposed to mean without more context, but like others have said, it is obvious that the second "condition" refers to the "condition" mentioned earlier in the sentence.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The sentence is quite confusing,

I deem it self-contradictory, but I am not a teacher.

 

[Rover_KE]

en_buff, please read this extract from the posting guidelines:

You are welcome to answer questions posted in the Ask a Teacher forum as long as your suggestions, help, and advice reflect a good understanding of the English language. If you are not a teacher, you will need to state that clearly in your post.


xuzheng, please note that a better title would have been only after the condition already existed.

Extract from the Posting Guidelines:

'Thread titles should include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.'

 

[Matthew Wai]

xuzheng, clicking on the 'Thank' button can obviate the need for a new post saying 'Thanks', such is one of the many unwritten rules on this forum.

Not a teacher.

 

[xuzheng]

The sentence is quite confusing, to be honest, and it's pretty hard to tell what is supposed to mean without more context, but like others have said, it is obvious that the second "condition" refers to the "condition" mentioned earlier in the sentence.

Sorry guys I should have posted more information.

A senator, near the end of his first six-year term and running for reelection, made the claim: "Citizens of our state are thriving. While national unemployment levels have remained high, our state unemployment rate has been at astonishingly low levels for eleven years running. Clearly, everyone in our state has benefited from the economical packages I have introduced during my time in the Senate. "

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.

I still confused about this part 'only after the condition already existed.' please take a look again?

 

[Matthew Wai]

If the condition did not exist, something would not happen.

Not a teacher.

 

[en_buff]

en_buff, please read this extract from the posting guidelines:

You are welcome to answer questions posted in the Ask a Teacher forum as long as your suggestions, help, and advice reflect a good understanding of the English language. If you are not a teacher, you will need to state that clearly in your post.

Hi, Rover_KE. Thanks for the heads up. Didn't know about that requirement. Does a signature to the effect count as a "not a teacher" disclaimer?

 

[Barb_D]

Sorry guys I should have posted more information.

A senator, near the end of his first six-year term and running for reelection, made the claim: "Citizens of our state are thriving. While national unemployment levels have remained high, our state unemployment rate has been at astonishingly low levels for eleven years running. Clearly, everyone in our state has benefited from the economical packages I have introduced during my time in the Senate. "

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.

I still confused about this part 'only after the condition already existed.'please take a look again?

Thank you. This clarifies everything.

It takes a condition to be the effect of something - it claims that low unemployment (a condition) is the result (the effect) of his economic packages (something)
... something that happened only after the condition already existed. = the "something that happened" is his introduction of the economic package and it happened AFTER the condition of low unemployment had happened.

So he's saying "Hey, low unemployment is because of my work" but the low unemployment existed before his package.

That's why it was contradictory - it's a logical flaw.

11 years ago: Low unemployment began (condition)
6 years ago: He introduced his package
Now: Unemployment is / remains low

Logical flaw: Unemployment is low because of my package!

It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed. = It claims that a condition is the result of something that happened after that same conditional was already in place.

Here's another example:
You are 6'4" tall
You start taking vitamins.
You are still 6'4"
The vitamin manufacturer says "You are 6'4" tall - considerably taller than most other men. Clearly, you have benefited from the vitamins I have provided you."

Here, it takes a condition (your height) to be the results of something that happened after you were already tall (taking their vitamins).

This shows you how important CONTEXT is to answering your questions.

 

[Rover_KE]

Does a signature to the effect count as a "not a teacher" disclaimer?

It does — for the time being at least.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Logical flaw: Unemployment is low because of my package!

Would it be logical to say that the package keeps the unemployment low while it is high elsewhere?

 

[Barb_D]

We are an English forum, not a logic or debate forum.

If the entire nation were low, and then everywhere except where his package was in place it went up and it stayed low ONLY in the regions that did what he enabled, then yes, you could claim the continued low unemployment, despite rising numbers everywhere else, was a result of your action.