Quick Translation Help

Zlawyered

It might be the lack of coffee, or alternatively the 8 hrs of study so far, but for some reason I am having trouble translating this sentence.
(The tariff classification of an item should depend primarily on how the item is marketed)
I am translating it as.... tariff classification ---> How Item is marketed..
This is wrong though since I missed this question. It appears the correct translation is
How item is marketed----> tariff classification

I am utterly confused.. Please help.

mckpatts

"depend primarily on" is the key here. Get rid of "should" because it only serves to confuse.

Let's use X to represent "tariff classification of an item", and Y to represent "how the item is marketed".

So you have: X "depend(s) primarily on" Y. Let's break it down.

X depends on Y. This means that in order to have X (necessary condition), you need Y (sufficient condition).

So, Y ---> X.

"How the item is marketed" -----> "tariff classification of an item".

How the item is marketed primarily determines the tariff classification of an item.

Also, TAKE A BREAK. You aren't retaining any new information after hour 7, you're just tiring yourself out. Go eat a banana and sit outside for a while. Come back tomorrow and everything that seemed utterly confusing today will look so much clearer. Xx

gnarlydingus

I stared at this question for so long.

the language surrounding "depends" is tricky.

You gotta ask yourself in these cases "what depends?" when you get stuck.

tariff classification DEPENDS on how it is marketed

so the depend is linked to the tariff classification, and since depend is a necessary key word, u throw that guy into the necessary condition.

how item is marketed -> tariff classification.

very easy to get turned around on these, as I was doing mental gymnastics for 10 mins trying to tease this out. Dont get too bogged down in thinking about it as "if then" and just trust the suff/nec trigger words.

Good luck!

nanabillan

That was a great explanation! It def had me starting and stumped as well.

This reminds me of another Q I have been debating in my head to no avail.

If you fail a conjunctive sufficient condition, the rule falls away?

And same if you have a conjunctive necessary condition which is failed, the rule falls away?

Ex:

A and B -> C

/A = so rule is not triggered

D -> E and F

/F = rule is not triggered.

Am I doing this right? @mckpatts @gnarlydingus
Thanks in advance!!!

Heinz Doofenshmirtz

hey @nanabillan I'm not sure if this helps, but for conditional logic, I always remember that the rule only is triggered if you Satisfy the Sufficient, or Negate the Necessary.

For your first example, since /A, the rule is not triggered, but that doesn't mean the conclusion won't happen. You can still have C, even though A was not satisfied.

For the second example, since you negated the necessary, the sufficient condition also can't happen as you push back the contrapositive.

I hope this was helpful--in the first example even though the rule isn't triggered, the necessary condition can exist. However, in the second example, both the necessary and sufficient condition do not occur.

gnarlydingus

Comrade Heinz is right.

If you fail the sufficient nothing happens, you can have the necessary condition be true or untrue, it's free to float. For example, a1 -> b2 (read as a sequencing game rule) If u fail the sufficient condition and put a in spot 3, you can still have b in 2. However, if you fail the necessary, and out b in spot 3, you HAVE to fail the sufficient and can't put a in one. What happens is that necessary condition of b being in 2 is failed, so the conditions that precipitate it must also b failed, or else it leads to contradiction.

using ur second example, if the logic is D -> E and F, the contrapositive is ~F or E -> ~D, so if you dont have either F or E then you can't have D. (when you do the contrapositive u switch and to or and vice versa).

If ur having trouble with these I suggest just always writing the contrapositive so it's easier to see when things trigger, even if it takes a little longer. It's easier imo to look at only the sufficient conditions and see when things trigger vs having to think about failing the necessary and going backwards down the logic chain.

nanabillan

thank you! @gnarlydingus @"Heinz Doofenshmirtz" I think I was wondering more along the lines of if I fail one of the sufficient conditions depending on if it says 'and' or 'or'.

So:
A or B -> C ( I just need one to trigger the C)
however, if it is A and B -> C, the rule fails if I have /B.

On the other side:
A -> B and C ( this I know can become 2 separate statements: A -> B and A -> C)
say I have /C, then the whole statement will contrapose back?

A -> B or C
If I fail C, does something happen or not necessarily?

Heinz Doofenshmirtz

@nanabillan

For the first question about A--> B and C
the contrapositive of that is /B or /C-->/A

So, if you have /C, you will have /A. But, you do not know anything about B.

For the second question, with A--> B or C
the contrapositive of that is /B and /C -->/A
This means you must have /B AND /C simultaneously, not just one or the other. So, if you fail C, you could still have A. It is only if you fail C and B both that you know for sure that you do not have A.

Does this make sense?

nanabillan

thank you!