If A then B and C rewritten as if A and B then C??

weilucas37 · May 7

I swear I remember learning in one of the lessons that the lawgic if A then B and C can be rewritten as if A and B then C and vise versa but I can't find that lesson anywhere and am not sure if I just made that rule up in my head. Is this lawgic logical?

adamremtulla · May 7

I don't think those two statements are equivalent.

In the first statement, A, by itself, "leads" to B and C.
In this case, we would say A is sufficient for C.

In the second statement, A by itself does not lead to C; A must be accompanied by B.
In this case, A is not sufficient for C.

cafetero23 · May 7

I think you are confused with:

A-->B--->C

This would make it : A+B -->C

The one you wrote is A--> B and C. If A happens than so does B and C. There is nothing in your formula that indicates that B triggers C. It could be the case that B happens but not C if we look at the CP - which is if not B or C than not A.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Related Discussions

If A then B and C rewritten as if A and B then C??

if A --> B, then can I say if A is likely to happen, then B will likely to happen?For example, PT 43 S2 Q10 I am trying to examine the stimulus with only logic and try to make sense of AC A. Acceptance of criticism requ…

is that if A, then not B, and A or B, but not both the same thing?is that if A, then not B, and A or B, but not both the same thing?

A->B->C vs. A-> (B->C) lessonHey guys, I'm having trouble finding which lesson what I wrote in my notes is from. I have: Tuesday->rain->sad = if tuesday, it will rain, and it…

A > Either B or C. and then No C... What Must Be True?Problem: PT 2 - S2 - #13 To simplify, If A then, either B or C. And we were given No C. What Must Be True? 1. No A 2. or Can we still say A >…

A will ensure B -- does this mean A -> B or B -> A?Finally done with the LR section of CC and going through my notes. I dont remember which exact LR question this is from but I remember one of the…

Comments