Everyone who is a gourmet cook enjoys a wide variety of foods and spices. Since no one who enjoys a wide variety of f...

Kahanding January 11, 2018

Contra positive for first statement

Wouldn't the contrapositive for the first statement be If you do not enjoy food OR spices then you are not a god must cook? Since the statement include (and), wouldn't it be switched for (or) in the contrapositive?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Mehran January 13, 2018

Hi @Kahanding, thanks for your post.

The premise "everyone who is a gourmet cook enjoys a wide variety of food and spices" is properly diagrammed as:
positive: GC ==> EWV
cp: not EWV ==> not GC

The "and" between "food and spices" does not separate two independent conditions, but is rather a simple conjunction as part of the given necessary condition.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

EmilyMarieMenendez July 11, 2018

Hello,

Is there a way to know when the use of "and/or" is used to separate two independent conditions rather than a simple conjunction?

Thank you,
Emily Menendez

Christopher July 28, 2018

@EmilyMarieMenendez, I'm not following your question as it relates to this question. Do you mind clarifying before I take a stab at explaining?

EmilyMarieMenendez August 16, 2018

My apologies!

I am referring to the diagraming of sufficient and necessary within passages that include and/or word usage. I have noticed in some passages the "and" is used to diagram the necessary as X "&" Y with the contra positive being X or Y, however, there are some passages that include the word "and" but the necessary variables are jumbled together as XY, disregarding the "and" in between the variable in the sentence of the passage.

I hope this makes more sense. If not, please let me know if you are available for a phone call. Thanks!

PhoebeIman January 10, 2021

Hello! Although I got this question correct, I also do not understand why the conditional is not diagrammed as GC-->EVF & EVS Diagramming this way didn't seem to impede me from answering the question correctly, but I am not sure if that would be the case in another question with "and" in the passage. Please let us know, thank you!