Joffrey must kill Bran or Robb. If he doesn't kill Arya, he cannot kill Robb. He cannot kill both Arya and Sansa. If he doesn't kill Robb, he must kill Jon.

I am confused about question 2. I do not understand why the word "cannot" represents a negative in the second sentence but doesn't represent a negative in the third sentence. By this, I mean that I did get as far as following the group one translation rule for the second sentence and got /A->/R, the rational being that both of the "/" where due to "If he doesn't kill Arya, he cannot kill Robb. That said, I am not sure why "cannot" in the third sentence does not result in the same thing. I followed the rule of group 4 as "cannot" and "both" were mentioned in the sentence. I chose Sansa to be the necessary condition and following the previous assumption that both were negative due to the "cannot", then negated the thought to be "negative" Sansa (turning it into a positive), resulting in me getting this answer /A->S.

I don't understand what I did wrong. Specifically looking for a role as to why this is wrong so I don't do this again. Ive been stuck for over an hour on this....

I had the same question and looked it up on another site. This is what I found, I hope this helps:

What is an Argument?

An argument, in logical terms, is a set of statements where some statements (premises) provide support or reasons for another statement (the conclusion).

Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations

The key difference between an argument and an explanation lies in their purpose:

Argument: Aims to persuade or prove that a conclusion is true.

Explanation: Aims to clarify why something is the case.

Analyzing the Sentence

Sentence: "I'm hugging you because I miss you."

Parts:

"I'm hugging you" (statement of action).

"because I miss you" (statement of reason).

Why It's an Explanation

In this sentence:

The primary purpose is to explain why the action (hugging) is occurring.

It’s not trying to persuade the listener to accept the action or prove that the action is happening; it’s taken as a given.

Constructing an Argument

For it to be an argument, it would need to be structured to prove a point, like this:

Premise: If I miss someone, I hug them.

Premise: I miss you.

Conclusion: Therefore, I am hugging you.

This structure shows a clear attempt to use premises to logically support a conclusion.

Key Points to Consider

Explanation: "I'm hugging you because I miss you" states a cause-effect relationship without the intent to persuade or conclude.

Argument: Provides premises to support the truth of a conclusion.

Example Comparison

Explanation: "The streets are wet because it rained."

Purpose: To explain why the streets are wet.

Argument: "The streets are wet, so it must have rained."

Purpose: To conclude that it rained based on the observation of wet streets.

In conclusion, "I'm hugging you because I miss you" is not an argument because it does not aim to prove or persuade. It’s simply explaining the reason for the hug.

I got stumped on question 8.2. I felt like this was an argument because of the sentence "most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects". I thought this supported the conclusion that "all libraries and books stores are intellectual places" due to the library being a place that showcases a wide range of books on various subjects. Can someone explain why this doesn't support the conclusion.