Self-study
Learning and practicing the lawgic stuff. I promise this is the last one for tonight (its 1:30 am).
Given:
If Wong is appointed arbitrator, a decision will be reached promptly. Since it would be absurd to appoint anyone other than Wong as arbitrator, a prompt decision can reasonably be expected.
I did:
Wong -> Prompt
/Wong -> Absurd
[assumption] /Absurd
--------------------
Wong
--------------------
Prompt
In other words, there is like an intermediate assumption and subconclusion or something happening. We have "if Wong is not chosen as arbitrator, it would be absurd" [assumption] "we are not absurd", therefore, Wong is implicitly chosen. And since Wong -> Prompt, therefore, Prompt!
I have just not seen the lecturer or anyone do a notation yet for this assumption or intermediate conclusion stuff yet. Is there a defined way to do this I should follow?
1
2 comments
This looks good to me. I assume you're doing this just to clarify the logic and understand the argument better. In a timed situation I'd probably keep in my mind the idea that not appointing Wong is absurd and that we don't do absurd things.
@Kevin_Lin Yeah kinda just practicing converting to lawgic on things. I supposed in a timed situation you can read "it would be absurd to" as "we will not" almost, because we don't do things that are absurd. So here "Since it would be absurd to appoint anyone other than Wong as arbitrator" is just saying "We will appoint Wong, because it would be absurd not to". So
W → P
W
-----
P