Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Stumped on this Conditional Reasoning example!

d_114400d_114400 Member
edited February 2021 in Logic Games 41 karma

Struggling to understand the "not both" rule for a logic game. We have two committees and know that P --> /Q and Q--> /P (the not both rule). Now according to the explanation, P and Q must be separated amongst the two committees. While this obviously follows the not both rule, my question is, if we fail the sufficient condition (/P or /Q), can't we have them both together in the same committee since the conditional has fallen apart?

I know this is simple but for some reason i'm stumped! any advice would be appreciated :)

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • TheMommaBearTheMommaBear Member
    348 karma

    In an in/out game you could have both out, but not both in. But since this is two different committees, and not simply a question of being on the committee or off the committee, they need to be in separate groups.

  • d_114400d_114400 Member
    edited February 2021 41 karma

    @TheMommaBear said:
    In an in/out game you could have both out, but not both in. But since this is two different committees, and not simply a question of being on the committee or off the committee, they need to be in separate groups.

    That makes sense thank you! I incorrectly thought I would be able to turn this into an in/out game since it was two groups. Is there a time when this is allowed?

  • TheMommaBearTheMommaBear Member
    348 karma

    If I have a question like this I would write A/B under committee 1, and B/A under committee two. It visually represents that one of them always takes up a spot (granted all the pieces are used in each committee and there isn’t also an out group).

    As for your question, I’m sure there are examples, but I can’t think of any. 😬

  • yang9999yang9999 Core Member
    edited February 2021 419 karma

    @TheMommaBear said:
    If I have a question like this I would write A/B under committee 1, and B/A under committee two. It visually represents that one of them always takes up a spot (granted all the pieces are used in each committee and there isn’t also an out group).

    As for your question, I’m sure there are examples, but I can’t think of any. 😬

    yeah that can often allow you to make critical deductions about numerical distributions (e.g. if there are only a certain number of slots, having the A/B occupy a slot automatically means that any variable that is neither A nor B can never go there). However, for harder grouping games, I've noticed that they love chaining together various "not both" rules, so you can't do that when it happens (e.g. if it was A -> /B, and B -> /C, it doesn't do much good to write A/B down and B/C down in a slot)

  • TheMommaBearTheMommaBear Member
    348 karma

    @lsat_gunner

    Yeah, it would be a lot easier to keep those as rules next to the game board. B—> /A and /C

Sign In or Register to comment.