Damn... I was doing PT23 S2 Q9, and have no idea to connect and translate the words.
If I were to look in the question bank, how do I separate the conditional logic LR questions from the other ones. I can't seem to find it in the categories.
It's hard for me to explain what my problem is, but I hope someone understands. It's not the logic I am having problems with, it's translating logic from words!!! After looking at the process and answer, I found that some words and statements were the different in the argument, and I treated them as same variables!
PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, here is the logic translation text in order, with quotations, and answer process of question PT23 S2 Q9 :
ARGUMENT: Every action has consequences, and among the consequences of any action are other actions. And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good, but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible.
every action has a consequences
Action --> consequence (okay I got that part)
And among the consequences of any action are other actions
consequences --> action (what? How is "other actions" the same as "every action," it doesn't like they are talking about a different category)
And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good
Know if action good --> know if consequences are good (okay, got that part)
but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible
NOT knowing the future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible (Okay, I see how this we done)
Now the answer I was reading goes and chains the rest of the answer like this:
NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible
MY PROBLEM #1: I can't see how a contrapositive of Know if action good --> know if consequences are good can turn into NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good (this was done to chain up the statements, and I don't the how the heck these statements are the same).
MY PROBLEM #2: the answer chains up conclusion with a chain of three, and I don't understand how:
NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible
To me, that to me cuts into the other conditional statements.
How do these two statements below combine into one conditional chain? What rule allows this!?
NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good
NOT know if future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible
According to the answer, both statements above combine to this:
NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible?
