Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# LSAT Formal Logic Exercise

 Posts: 1,512 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PMPosted: 3 years agoI came across this exercise on the internet, and disagree quite a bit with the answer. I was hoping to get some thoughts on it. It can be found here: http://grockit.com...Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.(iv)-Eleanor runs for class president unopposed.(v)-No one runs for class president.My reasoning was that i and ii are both possible; Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, so it's possible that either of them could run unopposed.I also found iv and v fairly straight-forward: both are impossible. Iv is impossible because either Jacques or Mitzi are going to run, meaning that another person wouldn't be able to run unopposed. The same logic extends to V.So far, everything I have reasoned is correct, according to the answer key. The controversy comes in with answer iii. It suggests that both Jacques and Mitzi will run. But how is this possible? Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, are they not? "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. How, then, is iii possible?Any thoughts?~JohnMaynardKeynes "The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club Founder of the Barkalotti Stand with Dogs and Economics
 Posts: 14,501 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/1/2014 5:24:13 PMPosted: 3 years agoThe explanation they gave was utterly ridiculous - If you consider A and B, if the statement "A is blue UNLESS B is green", it's completely obvious that, in the case that B is green, A CANNOT be blue.The only way they could argue otherwise is if they use some weird semantic trick and say that "unless" would just result in A not necessarily being blue, but that the possibility would still remain (which I think is abusive to the English language, really).#StandWithBossy
 Posts: 1,512 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/1/2014 5:25:21 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/1/2014 5:24:13 PM, bossyburrito wrote:The explanation they gave was utterly ridiculous - If you consider A and B, if the statement "A is blue UNLESS B is green", it's completely obvious that, in the case that B is green, A CANNOT be blue.The only way they could argue otherwise is if they use some weird semantic trick and say that "unless" would just result in A not necessarily being blue, but that the possibility would still remain (which I think is abusive to the English language, really).I was thinking the same thing. "Unless" could indicate a possible exception, as you said, but not designate that the two events are mutually exclusive.~JohnMaynardKeynes "The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club Founder of the Barkalotti Stand with Dogs and Economics
 Posts: 24,987 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2014 6:31:01 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.Any thoughts?The issue is the word "and".In this context, poorly worded IMO, the answer is stating that the field will consist only of those two potential outcomes (i.e. only one of Jacques and Mitzi will run, and no one else)At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon "I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
 Posts: 24,987 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2014 6:41:32 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/1/2014 5:25:21 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:24:13 PM, bossyburrito wrote:The explanation they gave was utterly ridiculous - If you consider A and B, if the statement "A is blue UNLESS B is green", it's completely obvious that, in the case that B is green, A CANNOT be blue.The only way they could argue otherwise is if they use some weird semantic trick and say that "unless" would just result in A not necessarily being blue, but that the possibility would still remain (which I think is abusive to the English language, really).I was thinking the same thing. "Unless" could indicate a possible exception, as you said, but not designate that the two events are mutually exclusive.After reading the answer, it is equally nuanced.X unless Y, implies non-certainty, due to the possibility of an outcome (Mitzi running). A practical example would be Jacques would have to know that Mitzi is running. If he didn't know, then they'd both be running (and technically, they'd both be running for some amount of time, between Mitzi's hat being thrown and Jacques conceding).Plus, I still like my and response.I don't quite understand the cab example...At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon "I call albatross!" - seventhprofessor
 Posts: 1,505 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2014 5:42:36 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/1/2014 5:25:21 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:24:13 PM, bossyburrito wrote:The explanation they gave was utterly ridiculous - If you consider A and B, if the statement "A is blue UNLESS B is green", it's completely obvious that, in the case that B is green, A CANNOT be blue.The only way they could argue otherwise is if they use some weird semantic trick and say that "unless" would just result in A not necessarily being blue, but that the possibility would still remain (which I think is abusive to the English language, really).I was thinking the same thing. "Unless" could indicate a possible exception, as you said, but not designate that the two events are mutually exclusive.Unless indicates an exception, so I think it necessitates that they exclude each other here. Jacques will run for president is the rule, but if Mitzi runs then an exception will be made to that rule, so Jacques will not run. Right?'"I will call a cab unless my mom remembers to pick us up." Notice that even if mom does remember, we may decide we"d just as soon call a cab.' is complete nonsense since if his mother does remember and he calls a cab anyway then he's contradicted himself. Might as well say 'I won't drink the milk unless it's lactose free' and then drink it upon discovering that it contains lactose.
 Posts: 14,501 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2014 5:46:05 PMPosted: 3 years agoSadolite hit the nail on the head - it's a waste of time.#StandWithBossy
 Posts: 1,512 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/6/2014 5:46:19 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/6/2014 5:42:36 PM, Wocambs wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:25:21 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:24:13 PM, bossyburrito wrote:The explanation they gave was utterly ridiculous - If you consider A and B, if the statement "A is blue UNLESS B is green", it's completely obvious that, in the case that B is green, A CANNOT be blue.The only way they could argue otherwise is if they use some weird semantic trick and say that "unless" would just result in A not necessarily being blue, but that the possibility would still remain (which I think is abusive to the English language, really).I was thinking the same thing. "Unless" could indicate a possible exception, as you said, but not designate that the two events are mutually exclusive.Unless indicates an exception, so I think it necessitates that they exclude each other here. Jacques will run for president is the rule, but if Mitzi runs then an exception will be made to that rule, so Jacques will not run. Right?'"I will call a cab unless my mom remembers to pick us up." Notice that even if mom does remember, we may decide we"d just as soon call a cab.' is complete nonsense since if his mother does remember and he calls a cab anyway then he's contradicted himself. Might as well say 'I won't drink the milk unless it's lactose free' and then drink it upon discovering that it contains lactose.I had a similar case initially, and on a fundamental level I completely agree with you. The way the prompt asks us to think of "except" is completely unconventional. But I think what they were hoping we would do -- and, frankly, this is inductive from learning of the answer -- is reason that "X unless Y" suggests that X will occur provided that Y doesn't, i.e., Y may prevent X, but we don't have reason to believe that X and Y are mutually exclusive. I'm trying to think of a formulation where we could conclude that they are, but thus far I've had no luck.I'm honestly tempted to take a vote on this question. I feel that most people would probably agree with you that the events should be mutually exclusive.~JohnMaynardKeynes "The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club Founder of the Barkalotti Stand with Dogs and Economics
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:I came across this exercise on the internet, and disagree quite a bit with the answer. I was hoping to get some thoughts on it. It can be found here: http://grockit.com...Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.(iv)-Eleanor runs for class president unopposed.(v)-No one runs for class president.My reasoning was that i and ii are both possible; Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, so it's possible that either of them could run unopposed.I also found iv and v fairly straight-forward: both are impossible. Iv is impossible because either Jacques or Mitzi are going to run, meaning that another person wouldn't be able to run unopposed. The same logic extends to V.So far, everything I have reasoned is correct, according to the answer key. The controversy comes in with answer iii. It suggests that both Jacques and Mitzi will run. But how is this possible? Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, are they not? "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. How, then, is iii possible? Any thoughts?The underlined is the flaw in an otherwise well-reasoned explanation. X unless Y is the same as "if Y does NOT occur, X occurs", i.e. nY=>Xhttp://www.alphascore.com...Contrapositive is nX=>Y.Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.For me, the most convincing part of the link was the explanation that began "You can also look at Unless as essentially the same as saying "IF NOT""Good luck on the LSAT.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:34:01 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:I came across this exercise on the internet, and disagree quite a bit with the answer. I was hoping to get some thoughts on it. It can be found here: http://grockit.com...Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.(iv)-Eleanor runs for class president unopposed.(v)-No one runs for class president.My reasoning was that i and ii are both possible; Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, so it's possible that either of them could run unopposed.I also found iv and v fairly straight-forward: both are impossible. Iv is impossible because either Jacques or Mitzi are going to run, meaning that another person wouldn't be able to run unopposed. The same logic extends to V.So far, everything I have reasoned is correct, according to the answer key. The controversy comes in with answer iii. It suggests that both Jacques and Mitzi will run. But how is this possible? Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, are they not? "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. How, then, is iii possible? Any thoughts?The underlined is the flaw in an otherwise well-reasoned explanation. X unless Y is the same as "if Y does NOT occur, X occurs", i.e. nY=>Xhttp://www.alphascore.com...Contrapositive is nX=>Y.Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How does those statement not imply mutual exclusivity? If X, not Y. If Y, not X. They are clearly mutually exclusive.For me, the most convincing part of the link was the explanation that began "You can also look at Unless as essentially the same as saying "IF NOT""Good luck on the LSAT.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:35:40 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:34:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:I came across this exercise on the internet, and disagree quite a bit with the answer. I was hoping to get some thoughts on it. It can be found here: http://grockit.com...Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.(iv)-Eleanor runs for class president unopposed.(v)-No one runs for class president.My reasoning was that i and ii are both possible; Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, so it's possible that either of them could run unopposed.I also found iv and v fairly straight-forward: both are impossible. Iv is impossible because either Jacques or Mitzi are going to run, meaning that another person wouldn't be able to run unopposed. The same logic extends to V.So far, everything I have reasoned is correct, according to the answer key. The controversy comes in with answer iii. It suggests that both Jacques and Mitzi will run. But how is this possible? Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, are they not? "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. How, then, is iii possible? Any thoughts?The underlined is the flaw in an otherwise well-reasoned explanation. X unless Y is the same as "if Y does NOT occur, X occurs", i.e. nY=>Xhttp://www.alphascore.com...Contrapositive is nX=>Y.Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How does those statement not imply mutual exclusivity? If X, not Y. If Y, not X. They are clearly mutually exclusive.Because those are not the statements relevant to the question. Please reread my explanation, especially the underlined. Pay attention to detail.For me, the most convincing part of the link was the explanation that began "You can also look at Unless as essentially the same as saying "IF NOT""Good luck on the LSAT.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:36:43 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:35:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:34:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:I came across this exercise on the internet, and disagree quite a bit with the answer. I was hoping to get some thoughts on it. It can be found here: http://grockit.com...Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.(iv)-Eleanor runs for class president unopposed.(v)-No one runs for class president.My reasoning was that i and ii are both possible; Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, so it's possible that either of them could run unopposed.I also found iv and v fairly straight-forward: both are impossible. Iv is impossible because either Jacques or Mitzi are going to run, meaning that another person wouldn't be able to run unopposed. The same logic extends to V.So far, everything I have reasoned is correct, according to the answer key. The controversy comes in with answer iii. It suggests that both Jacques and Mitzi will run. But how is this possible? Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, are they not? "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. How, then, is iii possible? Any thoughts?The underlined is the flaw in an otherwise well-reasoned explanation. X unless Y is the same as "if Y does NOT occur, X occurs", i.e. nY=>Xhttp://www.alphascore.com...Contrapositive is nX=>Y.Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How does those statement not imply mutual exclusivity? If X, not Y. If Y, not X. They are clearly mutually exclusive.Because those are not the statements relevant to the question. Please reread my explanation, especially the underlined. Pay attention to detail.For me, the most convincing part of the link was the explanation that began "You can also look at Unless as essentially the same as saying "IF NOT""Good luck on the LSAT.Your explanation makes no sense whatsoever.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:37:23 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:36:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:35:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:34:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:I came across this exercise on the internet, and disagree quite a bit with the answer. I was hoping to get some thoughts on it. It can be found here: http://grockit.com...Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.(iv)-Eleanor runs for class president unopposed.(v)-No one runs for class president.My reasoning was that i and ii are both possible; Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, so it's possible that either of them could run unopposed.I also found iv and v fairly straight-forward: both are impossible. Iv is impossible because either Jacques or Mitzi are going to run, meaning that another person wouldn't be able to run unopposed. The same logic extends to V.So far, everything I have reasoned is correct, according to the answer key. The controversy comes in with answer iii. It suggests that both Jacques and Mitzi will run. But how is this possible? Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, are they not? "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. How, then, is iii possible? Any thoughts?The underlined is the flaw in an otherwise well-reasoned explanation. X unless Y is the same as "if Y does NOT occur, X occurs", i.e. nY=>Xhttp://www.alphascore.com...Contrapositive is nX=>Y.Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How does those statement not imply mutual exclusivity? If X, not Y. If Y, not X. They are clearly mutually exclusive.Because those are not the statements relevant to the question. Please reread my explanation, especially the underlined. Pay attention to detail.For me, the most convincing part of the link was the explanation that began "You can also look at Unless as essentially the same as saying "IF NOT""Good luck on the LSAT.Your explanation makes no sense whatsoever.Then you should not be taking the LSAT.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:45:59 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:37:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:36:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:35:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:34:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:I came across this exercise on the internet, and disagree quite a bit with the answer. I was hoping to get some thoughts on it. It can be found here: http://grockit.com...Jacques will run for class president unless Mitzi runs for class president. Which of the following is/are IMPOSSIBLE? [Choose all that apply](i)-Jacques runs for class president unopposed.(ii)-Mitzi runs for class president unopposed.(iii)-Only Jacques and Mitzi run for class president.(iv)-Eleanor runs for class president unopposed.(v)-No one runs for class president.My reasoning was that i and ii are both possible; Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, so it's possible that either of them could run unopposed.I also found iv and v fairly straight-forward: both are impossible. Iv is impossible because either Jacques or Mitzi are going to run, meaning that another person wouldn't be able to run unopposed. The same logic extends to V.So far, everything I have reasoned is correct, according to the answer key. The controversy comes in with answer iii. It suggests that both Jacques and Mitzi will run. But how is this possible? Jacques and Mitzi running are two mutually exclusive events, are they not? "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. How, then, is iii possible? Any thoughts?The underlined is the flaw in an otherwise well-reasoned explanation. X unless Y is the same as "if Y does NOT occur, X occurs", i.e. nY=>Xhttp://www.alphascore.com...Contrapositive is nX=>Y.Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How does those statement not imply mutual exclusivity? If X, not Y. If Y, not X. They are clearly mutually exclusive.Because those are not the statements relevant to the question. Please reread my explanation, especially the underlined. Pay attention to detail.For me, the most convincing part of the link was the explanation that began "You can also look at Unless as essentially the same as saying "IF NOT""Good luck on the LSAT.Your explanation makes no sense whatsoever.Then you should not be taking the LSAT.The definition of mutually exclusive: Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time. Jaques running for president and Mitizi running for president are mutually exclusive events, since if Mitizi runs, Jaques won't run. Q.E.D.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:47:29 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:45:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:37:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:The definition of mutually exclusive: Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time. Jaques running for president and Mitizi running for president are mutually exclusive events, since if Mitizi runs, Jaques won't run. Q.E.D.You're rephrasing the question...it's not a valid paraphrase. Read the link I provided, reread my explanation, think about it a bit, and tell me when you get it, because it is correct.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:51:58 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:47:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:45:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:37:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:The definition of mutually exclusive: Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time. Jaques running for president and Mitizi running for president are mutually exclusive events, since if Mitizi runs, Jaques won't run. Q.E.D.You're rephrasing the question...it's not a valid paraphrase. Read the link I provided, reread my explanation, think about it a bit, and tell me when you get it, because it is correct.Can you please rephrase your point?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:05:47 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".Given that Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.... Given that Jaques runs, Mitizi didn't run.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:08:05 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:05:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".Given that Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.... Given that Jaques runs, Mitizi didn't run.Again, you're not phrasing the question properly. It's "Given Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". That says nothing about what would happen if Mitzi runs.As it is, you need to be able to work on a symbolic level if you want a decent score (160+) on the LSAT. It's all about speed.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:16:15 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:08:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:05:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".Given that Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.... Given that Jaques runs, Mitizi didn't run.Again, you're not phrasing the question properly. It's "Given Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". That says nothing about what would happen if Mitzi runs.That was your statement, not his. His was: 'Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs' or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. So if Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:17:27 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:16:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:08:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:05:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".Given that Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.... Given that Jaques runs, Mitizi didn't run.Again, you're not phrasing the question properly. It's "Given Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". That says nothing about what would happen if Mitzi runs.That was your statement, not his. His was: 'Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs' or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. So if Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.sigh...replace "unless" with IF NOT.Then you get the statement "If Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". Your symbology is all wrong.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:21:15 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:17:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:16:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:08:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:05:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".Given that Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.... Given that Jaques runs, Mitizi didn't run.Again, you're not phrasing the question properly. It's "Given Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". That says nothing about what would happen if Mitzi runs.That was your statement, not his. His was: 'Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs' or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. So if Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.sigh...replace "unless" with IF NOT.Then you get the statement "If Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". Your symbology is all wrong.Those are not equivalent. The sentence "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" implies that if Mitzi runs, Jacques won't, while your sentence just implies that Jaques will run if Mitiiz doesn't (it doesn't mean Jaques won't run if Mitizi also runs).
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:22:00 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:21:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:17:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:16:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:08:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:05:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".Given that Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.... Given that Jaques runs, Mitizi didn't run.Again, you're not phrasing the question properly. It's "Given Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". That says nothing about what would happen if Mitzi runs.That was your statement, not his. His was: 'Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs' or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. So if Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.sigh...replace "unless" with IF NOT.Then you get the statement "If Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". Your symbology is all wrong.Those are not equivalent. The sentence "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" implies that if Mitzi runs, Jacques won't, while your sentence just implies that Jaques will run if Mitiiz doesn't (it doesn't mean Jaques won't run if Mitizi also runs).Reread the link I provided until you get it, or until you decide to stick to your own convoluted reasoning.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:22:39 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:22:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:21:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:17:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:16:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:08:05 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:05:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:03:24 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:59:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 4:55:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/1/2014 5:16:14 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:Neither of these statements imply mutual exclusivity...there is no necessary condition as to what happens "if X" or "if Y", and so there is no statement of exclusion for either condition.How is a necessary to know what happens "If X" or "If Y" to know that X and Y are mutually exclusive?You have to know that "Given X, Not Y" or "Given Y, Not X" in order to have mutual exclusivity. But, if you look at the link, the way "unless" is phrased is equivalent to "IF NOT". So, the proper symbolic representation of the question is "Given NOT Y, then X". That's not a statement of mutual exclusivity...it says nothing about what happens given Y or given X, which means you can very well have the case where "given Y, X", or "given X, Y".Given that Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.... Given that Jaques runs, Mitizi didn't run.Again, you're not phrasing the question properly. It's "Given Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". That says nothing about what would happen if Mitzi runs.That was your statement, not his. His was: 'Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs' or X unless Y. In order words, if Y occurs, X cannot. So if Mitzi runs, Jaques won't run.sigh...replace "unless" with IF NOT.Then you get the statement "If Mitzi does NOT run, Jacques will run". Your symbology is all wrong.Those are not equivalent. The sentence "Jacques will run unless Mitzi runs" implies that if Mitzi runs, Jacques won't, while your sentence just implies that Jaques will run if Mitiiz doesn't (it doesn't mean Jaques won't run if Mitizi also runs).Reread the link I provided until you get it, or until you decide to stick to your own convoluted reasoning.Okay, crazy.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:23:17 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:22:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:22:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:Reread the link I provided until you get it, or until you decide to stick to your own convoluted reasoning.Okay, crazy.I'm not the one insisting that the wrong answer is correct.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/7/2014 5:25:51 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/7/2014 5:23:17 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:22:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/7/2014 5:22:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:Reread the link I provided until you get it, or until you decide to stick to your own convoluted reasoning.Okay, crazy.I'm not the one insisting that the wrong answer is correct.Why, sure you aren't ; - )