Subscription pricing
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?
0
3 comments
Check out this thread- they posted cheat sheets with valid and invalid arguments that might be helpful
https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/32892/cheatsheet-for-valid-argument-forms-1-9
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.
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.