Group 3 indicator Quiz

Spencer D

I figured I'd post this as a discussion rather than a comment on the quiz page since it will be seen by more. I have 2 questions regarding the quiz. The first is about question one which is

A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act not performed under duress

I decided to take the first idea (not guilty), negate it, and make it my sufficient condition. So I have G---->UD/. This translates to english as "a person is guilty of a crime if they were not under duress". The contrapositive would be UD--->G/. This translates back to "if a person was under duress than they are not guilty". JY translated the ideas a G/ for not guilty and LC for liable of conduct. This means his translation was G---->LC as in "if they were guilty they were liable for conduct. Contrapositive would be LC/----> G/ which is of course "if they aren't liable for thier conduct they aren't guilty of the crime". So I'm not really sure why we ignore the not in the 2nd part of the sentence (not under duress) but don't ignore it in the first (not guilty). How do I know when I need to account for this "not" and when I can ignore it?

The second question I had for this quiz is from question 6. That sentence reads as

I won’t stop tickling you on the nose until the leprechauns from my dream stop nibbling my toes with their teeth that have the old fashioned braces to correct their severe overbite, a condition endemic to the Aberdeen leprechaun population, of my dreams.

For this one I took the 2nd Idea and made it the sufficient. I translated it to N/ for stop nibbling and then applied to the rule so it became N. Then I took the first part of the sentence and made it T. so N--->T and T/----> N/. This translates to english as "if leprechauns are nibbling, I'm tickling" and the contrapositive would be "If I'm not tickling then the leprechauns aren't nibbling". JY's translation was T--->/L and L---->T/. Again this is totally different than mine and we have ignored the "stop" in the 2nd part of the sentence. I can't seem to figure out why that is. Why can we just chalk that entire 2nd part of the sentence up as an "L" but other times we have to account for the "not", "stops", or "won't"?

Sami

@"Spencer D" said:
I decided to take the first idea (not guilty), negate it, and make it my sufficient condition. So I have G---->UD/. This translates to english as "a person is guilty of a crime if they were not under duress". The contrapositive would be UD--->G/.

Hey so I see what happened here.

For the first one you said you took "not guilty" and negated and made it your sufficient condition. But if you did that then your statement would read: if a person is guilty of crime they were not under duress. So even though you said you made it your sufficient condition when you finally wrote it down you made "not under duress" your sufficient condition.

@"Spencer D" said:
JY's translation was T--->/L and L---->T/.

For the second one, JY's translation is"/L--> T" not "L-->T" as you have written. Also, JY is calling "stop nibbling" as "L" and then if you put it in sufficient and negate it, it becomes /L. While you are calling "stop nibbling" as "/N" and then when you negate it to put it into sufficient, it becomes N. So when you compare your answers to JY just take a look at what his symbols actually mean compared to your symbols and that should help you determine better.