Does the connection between 'If there is something wrong, it behooves us to get at the roots of the problem, not to flail about wildly, for only after the source of a disease has been identified can one properly investigate its cure.' and 'If something is wrong, we must get to the root of it to decipher a cure. ' lack any definitive logical relationship?
If there is something wrong, it behooves us to get at the roots of the problem, not to flail about wildly, for only after the source of a disease has been identified can one properly investigate its cure.###If something is wrong, we must get to the root of it to decipher a cure. 