Based on the passage, it can be concluded that the author and Broyles-González hold essentially the same attitude toward

esther on July 2, 2018

quanitifer example 1

why is Pc= pompous cat considered sufficient wmbc-->some--> PC (i thought in order for PC to be sufficient I would have to rewrite this as as PC-->some--> WMBC FIRST) PC-->P not P--> not PC

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

Already have an account? log in

Mehran on July 3, 2018

Hi @esther! Thanks for your post. You are mistaking the shorthand. PC in this diagram is for "Persian cat." P in this diagram is for "pompous."

The sentence is: All Persian cats are pompous. The diagram is PC ==> P.

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

Delete1 on October 1, 2018

Hi, I noticed this same thing as Esther. What is confusing is how we diagrammed the first sentence I think, and not the PC->P statement.
In the video you have the example for the sentence "some of the world's most beautiful cats are Persian cats written as:
Then when discussing rule 2, you state the shared sufficient condition is PC, going on to circle the PC (Persian cat) in WMBC-some-PC and PC -> P (Persian cats are pompous).
I think the question was: why is PC circled at the end of the WMBC-some-PC if we are to understand that when written this way, PC at the end of this statement falls in as the necessary condition? However, if I were to try and explain the reason PC is sufficient is because, as we learned earlier, "some" statements are reversible and thus we could have it as PC-some-WMBC??
Thus we could have
Therefore they now share the same sufficient condition?
Please let me know if my thinking is incorrect.