Subscription pricing
My question is how to translate: the only obligation is to act in the best interests of their own side. Does obligation here act as a necessity indicator? So Does this mean that if something is in the best interest of either party the party is required to act on it? or that if there is an obligation for either party the party must act in their own best interest?
Admin note: edited title
0
6 comments
Hi, wanted to follow up on this - isn't "the only" a sufficient indicator? I diagrammed it the same as Trust the Process above and did "If obligation, then act in best interests"
obviously, the conclusion assigns "best interest" as the sufficient condition though. . .
"Your latter interpretation designates obligation as a sufficient condition and best interests as a necessary condition. But the second sentence assigns best interests to the sufficient side, while the conclusion places obligation on the necessary side (if anything"
I agree the first interpretation sounds more natural and fits with the conclusion placing the obligation to act in the necessary condition, but I was hesitant to interpret the statement like that because of the "the only" which serves as a sufficient condition indicator. "The only obligation that all parties have is to act in the best interest..." So am I correct in interpreting "obligation" here as requirement? "The only requirement..?"
Sounds far, far more natural than the latter.
Your latter interpretation designates obligation as a sufficient condition and best interests as a necessary condition. But the second sentence assigns best interests to the sufficient side, while the conclusion places obligation on the necessary side (if anything). There is some weird logical mishap going on, and that's not counting the gap regarding producers (which is and should be the main concern).
Oops...yes that was by accident....But may I ask why you think the former seems to be the better approach?
Does obligation here act as a necessity indicator? So Does this mean that if something is in the best interest of either party the party is required to act on it? or that if there is an obligation for either party the party must act in their own best interest?
The former seems to be the better approach.
There's a rule against quoting directly from PTs (though this surely was inadvertent).