Conditional Question regarding games Forum

[e10]

I want to make sure I have this right:

If L, then not K

L-->/K

Contra:

K-->/L

So, if there is one then there cannot be the other. However, it is possible that both can be out.


/L-->K

Conta:

/K-->L

This means that one has to be in or both can be in, but both cannot be out

A little confused about this though:

/L-->/K

Contra:

K-->L

What does that tell you?

[LSAT Blog]

Your understanding is solid. This is a difficult issue that most people struggle with at some point, but you've got it down.

With regard to your other question,

/L-->/K

Contra:

K-->L

if we have K, then we have L. So if we lack L, we must also lack K.

We could have neither of the two, have L only, or have both K and L. However, we can't have K without also having L (because K requires L).

All good?

[Jeffort]

I want to make sure I have this right:

If L, then not K

L-->/K

Contra:

K-->/L

So, if there is one then there cannot be the other. However, it is possible that both can be out.


/L-->K

Conta:

/K-->L

This means that one has to be in or both can be in, but both cannot be out

A little confused about this though:

/L-->/K

Contra:

K-->L

What does that tell you?

You have it correct with them. 1st one establishes that L & K are mutually exclusive with each other, cannot have both but can have neither. 2nd one establishes an either/or situation where you have to have at least one of them and can have both of them if no other restrictions prohibit both.

The last one is just what it is: K ---> L as well as the contrapositive which you started off with.