PT4.S4.Q9 - A scientific theory is a good theory

wkim2015wkim2015 Member
edited April 2018 in Logical Reasoning 86 karma

"A is good if it satisfies B." How would you guys translate this? B --> A? or A--> B?

I feel like without translating it as A-->B, it's impossible to get the right answer.

Admin note: edited title


  • olepuebloolepueblo Alum Member
    235 karma

    Translation is pretty mathematical. If always indicates a sufficient condition. This is my thought process for parsing out the sentence:

    1. A is good if (it) satisfies B
    2. A is good if (A) satisfies B
    3. [A is good] if [(A) satisfies B]

    A satisfies B --> A is good

    I wouldn't try to break down the sufficient condition of "A satisfies B" any further.

    If you use the problem as an example: satisfies 2 things --> good theory --> 1 thing
    --> other thing

    Satisfying the two things is sufficient for it being a good theory, but those things are also each is a necessary condition for it being a good theory as well.

  • galacticgalactic Yearly Member
    edited October 2021 690 karma

    Reaching out for #help on this gem from PT4.

    "A scientific theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements"

    When I translate this intuitively I'm getting:

    Good theory -> Satisfy 2 requirements

    Based on the wrong ACs to this MBT Except question, I think LSAC is hinting at this translation as well.

    My problem with putting the "Satisfy 2 requirements" in the sufficient condition like this,

    Satisfy 2 requirements -> Good theory

    is that even though it was introduced by "if", requirements don't ever guarantee anything, but are simply our must haves.

    Another way to look at it is like this:

    Good theory <-> Satisfy 2 requirements

    But once again I feel this is straying away from the intuitive understanding of what this sentence is communicating. Treating this as a bi-conditional just because we have the "if" and "requirements" together seems like a quick fix to the confusion, but I still think it's missing the point.

    I am definitely open to convincing though! Would love to hear anyone's thoughts.

  • abbymajerusabbymajerus Monthly Member
    26 karma

    I interpreted the first line as
    Satisfy 2 requirements -> good theory because I thought it was saying if the requirements are met, then it's a good theory
    I thought the next 2 sentences which say that a good theory "must" do x and y introduce the bi conditional because it treats the requirements as necessary, not just sufficient.

Sign In or Register to comment.