Well... maybe a sub-set of criminals. In general, most high-IQ people are not criminals, hence not Ns.
Though the statement as read seems to be something like:
High IQ implies Not Criminals, therfore High IQ implies not Ns. ??
I think it was meant to say:
High IQ implies Not Criminals, N implies High IQ (from prior post), therfore N implies not criminal.
My non-sequitur alarm went off at this statement.
Uberfuhrer may still be right.
The following argument is valid:
Premise 1:A person with high IQ will not be a criminal.
Premise 2:An iNtuitive person will have high IQ.
Conclusion:An iNtuitive person will not be a criminal.
The following argument is
not sound:
Premise 1a:A person with high IQ will
likely not be a criminal.
Premise 2a:An iNtuitive person will
likely have high IQ.
non-sequitur:An iNtuitive person will
likely not be a criminal.
You need to bring in some more data/premises.
Consider the follwing
hypothetical situation.
10% of the people have high IQ, are not criminals and are not iNtuitives.
5% of the poeple have high IQ, are cirminals and are iNtuitives.
70% of the people do not have High IQs, are not criminals, and are not iNtuitives.
15% of the people do not have high IQs, are criminals, and not iNtuitives
Here premises 1a, and premise 2a, hold, but the non-sequitur clearly does not.