Some people are Montagues and some people are Capulets.No Montague can be crossed in love.All Capulets can be crossed...
ShirnelApril 16, 2020
Question Stem
I got this answer correct and understand how I arrived to that answer by creating a transitive property but what I don't understand is why the question stem reversed the last premise.
"If it is also true that no Montague is intemperate"
What am I paying attention to here?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! So the question stem actually didn’t reverse the last premise. What the question stem says and what the premise says do not mean the same thing. Let’s take a look at the last premise: Anyone who is not a Montague is intemperate. This tells us that
M = Montague; I = Intemperate ~M —> I
But what the question stem tells us is that no Montague is intemperate. In other words:
M —> ~I
And so this lets us create a biconditional between the two:
M <—> I
Which basically tells us that if someone’s a Montague or intemperate, they’re the other, and if they’re not one, then they’re not the other. In plain English, just knowing that non-Montague are intemperate doesn’t tell us anything about the Montague. We need the additional information in the passage to know about how temperate/intemperate the Montague themselves are.
Hope this helps. Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.
JohnDanvers_1997August 30, 2020
I had the same question--thanks!
JoshHoward504June 8, 2021
Ok, my mind keeps getting stuck here. I also thought that the last premise was reversing what was asked in the QS, and that's why I missed the question, but after reading Shunhe’s explanation. I have a few other questions:
1. Is this a common situation that would alert us to one of the premises being a biconditional?
Ex. premise 1 premise 2
QS. Something that seems/feels like a reversal of one of the above premises.
2.) If not, how can I learn to spot them because I am missing them?
