Conditional rule

hihihi9993

Can "F is hired for a position in a different department from G" translate to F->/G? or Does it have to be F<->/G?

LSATcantwin

Try and think about it as simply as possible.

“F is hired for a different department than G.”

Doesn’t that mean that F and G can’t be in the same department as each other?

If so F->/G and G->/F

We just want to make sure they aren’t in the same department! Sometimes it helps to just keep it simple and try and think about what it is saying. I hope this helps.

StrangerThanFiction175

I would say it is the first, unless you are looking at an In/Out game where both must be on the board. The second would imply that anytime that G isn't hired in a department, F must be. That is stronger than what the statement says.

hihihi9993

@zmeeker91 said:
I would say it is the first, unless you are looking at an In/Out game where both F and G have to be selected. The second would imply that anytime that G isn't hired in a department, F must be. That is stronger than what the statement says.

@LSATcantwin said:
Try and think about it as simply as possible.

“F is hired for a different department than G.”

Doesn’t that mean that F and G can’t be in the same department as each other?

If so F->/G and G->/F

We just want to make sure they aren’t in the same department! Sometimes it helps to just keep it simple and try and think about what it is saying. I hope this helps.

Thank you @zmeeker91 and @LSATcantwin for helping organize my thoughts!
I was suddenly confused in this specific grouping game (that has three groups) in which JY translated "F is hired for a position in a different department from G" as /[FG]. This made me wonder if it is okay to use A->/B and A<->/B interchangeably, which I highly doubted. I guess that was allowed in that specific incident, but not always! (PT38.S2.G3 that was if you are curious!) Thank you both again!

akistotle

@d931n027h said:

@zmeeker91 said:
I would say it is the first, unless you are looking at an In/Out game where both F and G have to be selected. The second would imply that anytime that G isn't hired in a department, F must be. That is stronger than what the statement says.

@LSATcantwin said:
Try and think about it as simply as possible.

“F is hired for a different department than G.”

Doesn’t that mean that F and G can’t be in the same department as each other?

If so F->/G and G->/F

We just want to make sure they aren’t in the same department! Sometimes it helps to just keep it simple and try and think about what it is saying. I hope this helps.

Thank you @zmeeker91 and @LSATcantwin for helping organize my thoughts!
I was suddenly confused in this specific grouping game (that has three groups) in which JY translated "F is hired for a position in a different department from G" as /[FG]. This made me wonder if it is okay to use A->/B and A<->/B interchangeably, which I highly doubted. I guess that was allowed in that specific incident, but not always! (PT38.S2.G3 that was if you are curious!) Thank you both again!

How you represent rules depends on the kind of games you are dealing with.

PT38.S2.G3 is a grouping game with three groups. So if you want to represent the rule as a conditional rule, I think it should be represented as F --> /G (If F is in management, G has to be in other groups...etc) in this case because F <---> /G implies that either F or G has to be in each group. But it is confusing to remember this. This is why J.Y. represents the rule as /[FG].

akistotle

As @zmeeker91 says, if you are looking at In/Out game where there are two groups (for example, there are management and production only; management: IN group, production: OUT group), you should represent it as F <---> /G because representing as F ---> /G allows you put F and G both in the OUT group (production) when the original rule doesn't allow it to happen.

hihihi9993

@akistotle Thank you!

akistotle

@d931n027h said:
@akistotle Thank you!

I recommend that you look into this thread because I think you had the same confusion:
https://7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/14156/confusing-bi-conditional-vs-not-both-in-lg