I didn't realize you can negate one of the two subjects on both sides of the contrapositive. I though it either had to negate both or neither, Seeing question one and two negate on of the two makes a lot of sense though and probably saves a lot of time.
I'm lost on contrapositives. I don't understand how to do the flip and negate. Can someone help?
I'm going to move on for now because I think I have a compulsive disorder, and if I don't move on I won't stop thinking about this and will keep having panic attacks. So I'll come back to it later.
@Windy I had a lot of trouble with negate, I used to "opposite" things instead of negate, which can cause problems like in 3 here.
Negating the two parts of #3 gives you "people do not buy and use less" and "things do not cost more". Which is different than making them the opposite (buy and use more/cost less). Because, for example, "will not buy and use less" could mean buy and use more OR buy and use the same amount. I got this "formula" wrong on practice tests before and now after this section I see why.
Basically, I stopped thinking of these as language and treated them like math. It ends up being really clunky English but the logic is right. Or at least I think so lol
For #3, the 'AND' confused me, as I believed the 'AND' turns into an 'OR' when you flip and negate. In this case, this was not done because ' properly follows the chain of logic' is one concept instead of two?
Learning about opposition vs. negation was VERY helpful... of course writing the symbols is mechanical but if you don't understand what is being translated this entire thing is pointless... so understanding the dif. between "it is not the case that things cost more" versus "things cost more" versus "things cost less" is important.
@Cweathers Yes you would have to flip them because negating the conditional relationship your sufficient condition now becomes your necessary condition
so I was kind of confused on question #2 and I reworded it to where it was LS->under 40 and /under 40-> /LS I don't know if I was overthinking it but would it still be considered correct or no?
4.5/5 because brain fog on #1 where I said ICSA (I can see Arun) rather than ICNSA (I can not see Arun). Was moving too fast 🫠 but I caught it after re-reading
If you make flashcards with the individual indicator words on one side and the type of conditional on the back, and just keep practicing with those, you will gradually start to internalize them to the point where you don't even think about it. It's great practice while watching TV or something!
Does the order of the first and second statement matter as long as both premises are there?
For example, question 2 my A statement is "over 40 -> /ski" and my b statement is "ski -> /over 40". The answer given gave the same statements in the opposite order, is there any functional difference between the two?
5/5! next steps would be to find a more reduced and simple way to notate the predicates of the sentence. for example, with Q2, i said "over 40 --> /learn to ski" while the example said "over 40 --> /want to learn to ski." i'm not sure how important the distinguishing of these more complex subjects will be in the future, but it's probably better to be more specific than not?
@LastLivingLily0 Its all about if you can keep track of the symbols. For example, I did 40—>/S - I was able to keep track of this because one mentioned 40 and the other mentioned skiing. If you can keep track of it without using more words I would imagine that would be more helpful. However, if you need more words to remember each condition, don’t hesitate to use as many words as you need. It is all about how you personally work best.
305 comments
I didn't realize you can negate one of the two subjects on both sides of the contrapositive. I though it either had to negate both or neither, Seeing question one and two negate on of the two makes a lot of sense though and probably saves a lot of time.
I'm lost on contrapositives. I don't understand how to do the flip and negate. Can someone help?
I'm going to move on for now because I think I have a compulsive disorder, and if I don't move on I won't stop thinking about this and will keep having panic attacks. So I'll come back to it later.
@Windy I had a lot of trouble with negate, I used to "opposite" things instead of negate, which can cause problems like in 3 here.
Negating the two parts of #3 gives you "people do not buy and use less" and "things do not cost more". Which is different than making them the opposite (buy and use more/cost less). Because, for example, "will not buy and use less" could mean buy and use more OR buy and use the same amount. I got this "formula" wrong on practice tests before and now after this section I see why.
Basically, I stopped thinking of these as language and treated them like math. It ends up being really clunky English but the logic is right. Or at least I think so lol
5/5 - but I literally had to write each out and break it down before I answered the question which took time...
one fun way i've been remembering sufficient v necessary is: if i am dating x person --> they meet my bare minimum
For #3, the 'AND' confused me, as I believed the 'AND' turns into an 'OR' when you flip and negate. In this case, this was not done because ' properly follows the chain of logic' is one concept instead of two?
@Laurajval basically, yeah
5/5 ayeeeee
5/5 !
Learning about opposition vs. negation was VERY helpful... of course writing the symbols is mechanical but if you don't understand what is being translated this entire thing is pointless... so understanding the dif. between "it is not the case that things cost more" versus "things cost more" versus "things cost less" is important.
is it just me or were all of these quite simple very confident 5/5
Hmm so whenever I do the contrapositive negation I want to flip the non-contrapositive.
Ex: All marines eat yellow crayola crayons
Marines --> eat yellow cc
/eat yellow cc --> /Marine
At least I believe this is right, really bad example but its good to see I need to flip them.
@Cweathers Yes you would have to flip them because negating the conditional relationship your sufficient condition now becomes your necessary condition
so I was kind of confused on question #2 and I reworded it to where it was LS->under 40 and /under 40-> /LS I don't know if I was overthinking it but would it still be considered correct or no?
How is learning this helpful can't you just draw these conclusions without formula?
5/5 :))))))
dont hate me but i skipped the first one because the only person Ik with that name sucks
4.5/5 because brain fog on #1 where I said ICSA (I can see Arun) rather than ICNSA (I can not see Arun). Was moving too fast 🫠 but I caught it after re-reading
If you make flashcards with the individual indicator words on one side and the type of conditional on the back, and just keep practicing with those, you will gradually start to internalize them to the point where you don't even think about it. It's great practice while watching TV or something!
4/5, question 3 threw me off. I mistook less of them for a negative indicator. I see now why that does not make sense.
I struggled with this. Had to watch twice.
Number 5 got me. I didn't identify the 2 concepts and the modifier. Now I see why it's important. That was a good trick question.
@ChelsiSmith SAME LOL
Does the order of the first and second statement matter as long as both premises are there?
For example, question 2 my A statement is "over 40 -> /ski" and my b statement is "ski -> /over 40". The answer given gave the same statements in the opposite order, is there any functional difference between the two?
@Aubrey.Raile To my understanding, no. The contrapositive functions exactly the same so writing the original or contrapositive first shouldn’t matter.
It may be important if the question is specifically asking you to identify the contrapositive or vice versa, but otherwise they are exactlly the same.
@BenWillGold okay perfect, thank you!
5/5 yippee!
kinda getting it wooooo
5/5! next steps would be to find a more reduced and simple way to notate the predicates of the sentence. for example, with Q2, i said "over 40 --> /learn to ski" while the example said "over 40 --> /want to learn to ski." i'm not sure how important the distinguishing of these more complex subjects will be in the future, but it's probably better to be more specific than not?
@LastLivingLily0 Its all about if you can keep track of the symbols. For example, I did 40—>/S - I was able to keep track of this because one mentioned 40 and the other mentioned skiing. If you can keep track of it without using more words I would imagine that would be more helpful. However, if you need more words to remember each condition, don’t hesitate to use as many words as you need. It is all about how you personally work best.
The mid sentence "If" is karmatic.
I fumbled on no 5 :(