Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
For Question 4, it seems like the instructor explained the question by understanding the meaning of the statement intuitively.
I believe I reached the same conclusion without taking the comparison into account by treating it as an "ALL" claim.
Original Statement: If it is a small animal, then it moves more rapidly than a large animal.
Logical Translation: $\text{Small} \rightarrow \text{MMRTL}$
Negating the "ALL" Claim: $\text{Small} \text{ AND } \neg\text{MMRTL}$
English Translation: There can be cases of a small animal that does not move more rapidly than large animals.
Is this a valid way to negate comparison statements?