# The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

avif on April 12, 2020

Example 4

In example 4 I wrote out the first logical condition the opposite the way that you did. Instead of writing MS then MP I had that without MP then no MS. There seems to be no difference but I am just wondering in the setup of things why you wrote it your way.

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

Skylar on April 13, 2020

@avif, happy to help!

Basically, we write it this way because our rule sets it up as so.

We know that the term "only" introduces a Necessary condition. So, when we see the word "only" in the first sentence, we know that the section of the sentence immediately following is our Necessary condition. Here, that is "marketplaces." We write this as: _ -> MP. Then, we make the other section of the sentence into our Sufficient condition. This is "monetary systems," or MS. Therefore, we write our diagram as: MS -> MP.

The contrapositive of MS -> MP is: not MP -> not MS. There is no difference in meaning between the two, and both are valid.

You seem to be reframing the first sentence into "without MP then no MS." Our rule with the word "without" is to make the section of the sentence immediately following the word into the Necessary condition, negate the other section of the sentence, and make this negated section into the Sufficient condition. Therefore, we could diagram "without MP, no MS" into: MS -> MP. This is the same as the diagram we made above.

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!

avif on April 13, 2020

I see how you are doing it. Yet somehow it makes more internal sense to me when I write it this way. I have seen that I have done it on more than one example. I wonder why that is? In general I have difficulties just remembering rules and I tend to remember things when they make more internal sense to me. I guess I will need to practice more of these types and see how it plays out.