A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an

event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be
present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will
produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide
sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In
other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.

The Conditional Fallacy

Why is this important? Because it points to what is probably the most common fallacy
involving conditions: not sufficient means not necessary.

For example, we often hear this kind of argument:

Studies show that simply spending money will not improve test scores in schools. So we
should be looking at something else, like quality teachers.

What makes this a bit tricky is that the conclusion is often implicit. The conclusion, if spelled
out, is that we should be doing something instead of throwing money at the problem.

Here's an example of the fallacy being committed. Ewan McIntosh writes, "In 2006 there
was $2 trillion spent on education by the world's governments. But money alone is
not the reason we see improvement, not always." He then recommends "Getting the right
people to become teachers, developing them into effective instructors (and) ensuring that
the system is able to offer the best possible instruction for every child ."
Presumably, instead of spending money on the problem - after all, Singapore didn't have to.

Here is Tom Hoffman identfying the fallacy in McIntosh's reasoning: "I don't have the
slightest idea what school budgets look like in Scotland, so maybe over there it is
appropriate to put across the message that more funding isn't necessary to improve
education, but on this side of the pond, even this study makes it clear that improving
American education requires spending more money."

The stiuation is represented thus: spending money is necessary but not sufficient to improve
educational outcomes.

What this means is that simply spending money won't solve the problem. There are many
ways to spend money that are not effective, as evidenced by many actual spendings of
money that are not effective. Purchasing each mathematics class a Lear jet, for example,
would certainly spend money. But it would not be very effective.

The response to this fallacy is to say, as Tom Hoffman did, that spending money
is necessary in order to solve the problem. What this means is that, while the mere spending
of money is no guarantee, nonetheless, the problem will not be solved unless money is
spent. The supposition that the problem can be solved without spending money is a fallacy.

1. Being a mammal is a sufficient condition for being human. False. Being a mammal does
not guaranteee that one is a human. There are mammals that are not human.

2. Being human is a sufficient condition for being a mammal. True. Being a human
guarantees that one is a mammal. As soon as we find out that something is not a mammal,
we know that it cannot be a human.
 3. Being alive is a necessary condition for having a right to life. True. Nothing that is not
alive can have a right to life.

4. Being alive is a suffcient condition for having a right to life. False. There are lots of things
that are alive that do not have a right to life. What about, for example, grass? This answer
could be questioned by those who think that it is seriously wrong to kill anything that is alive.

5. If it is true that if P then Q, then P is a sufficient condition for Q. True. The truth of P is
sufficient for, guarantees the truth of Q.

6. If it is true that if P then Q, then Q is a necessary condition for P. True. If Q is not true,
then P is not true. The falsity of Q rules out the truth of P. It is necessary for Q to be true in
order for P to be true.

7. If it is true that if P is not the case, then Q is not the case, then P is a necessary condition
for Q. True. The truth of P is necessary in order for Q to be true. When P is not true, Q is not
true.

8. If it is true that if P is not the case, then Q is not the case, then P is a sufficient condition
for Q. False. The truth of P does not guarantee the truth of Q. All we know is that the falsity
of P guarantees the falsity of Q. For example, let P be "A student hands in his/her term
paper" and Q be "This student gets an A in 341."

9. Something is a brother if and only if it is a male sibling. This means that being a male
sibling is both necessary and sufficient for something to be a brother. True. In general if it is
the case that P is true if and only if Q is true, then Q is necessary and sufficient for P and P
is necessary and sufficient for Q. If anything fails to be male or fails to be a sibling, then it is
not a brother. So being a male sibling is a necessary condition for being a brother.
Furthermore, it is impossible for anything to be a male sibling and not to be a brother. So
being a male sibling is a sufficient condition for being a brother.