Question about conditional logic / flaw !! Forum

[jlee282]

hey guys, I was wondering if you guys could help me straighten this out.


"the only reason why I'd goto the gas station is because I ran out of gas. Therefore I'd never goto the gas station to buy candy."

Would you consider this statement to hold true or flawed? if flawed, how is it flawed? If an assumption could be applied to make this statement hold true, what would that assumption be?


thanks in advance, I'm just really confused : (.

[suspicious android]

hey guys, I was wondering if you guys could help me straighten this out.


"the only reason why I'd goto the gas station is because I ran out of gas. Therefore I'd never goto the gas station to buy candy."

Would you consider this statement to hold true or flawed? if flawed, how is it flawed? If an assumption could be applied to make this statement hold true, what would that assumption be?


thanks in advance, I'm just really confused : (.

100% of the time you go to the gas station it has to be because you ran out of gas. You might buy candy while you're there, but if your premise is true, you wouldn't go to the gas station in order to accomplish that candy buying goal.

[AreJay711]

I agree with android.

This is actually more complicated than it looks at first. One statement you could derive from that would be "If I go to the gas station, it is because I ran out of gas" and that might mess you up. Using powerscore notation it is G --> Ran out of Gas. This doesn't really capture the essence of the statement though because it also has to be the ONLY REASON you would go to a gas station would be to buy gas (which means you could have no other reason that would compel you to go). G --> Ran out of gas * No other reason.

If you know there is a flaw (from like a lr question or something) then maybe an assumption that buying candy at a gas station does not mean that the reason you went to the gas station was to buy candy or an assumption clarifying what the conclusion or premise meant.

[Shostakovich]

does the stimulus followed by "never" always encode the negation of the necessary condition of the argument, while the other part always encodes the sufficient condition?