... say we have a premise (B->C) and we have ... something like
___ (and) (B->C) -> (A-> ... in this case (A->B) would be the obvious sufficient ... assumption. Is that saying
(B->C) (and) (A-> ...
... because even though A->B, it could be that ... rocket"
[A->B, therefore B->A [mistaken reversal)]. ... br />
A->B ; not A-> not B [mistaken negation] B; not A->not B" = "A->B; B->A ... not A -> not B and B->A are making ...
Is it just me or does PT B (February 1999) from the SuperPrep series seem more difficult than all other PrepTests? If so do you guys have any ideas on why this is? Maybe I just had a brain fart really struggled with this one haha
I understood "A or B but not both" as ... :
1. A(O) B(X)
2. A(X ... of it?
A/B = CONTRAPOSITIVE => /A + /B ?????
But my ... (3) indicates /A and /B could fall under the definition ... of "A or B but not both".
...
... "doing A will ensure that B happens."
I have in ... my notes A -> B, but I want to make ... sufficient for the occurence of B, not that A is necessary ... to make B happen.
... treated Only A is B as B-->A. So far ... the statement "only A is B" deny other necessary conditions? ... am assuming A assures B = A-->B)
2. does ... anything not A) --> B a false statement?
For ... br />
Assuming (only A is B = B-->A and no other ...
... would one write "A then B or C but not both ... />
I usually use "A -> B/C not both" when solving ... be written as A -> (B/C), but it looks very ...
this might be a dumb question but does anyone know if you can get PT A or B on 7sage? I have the Ultimate+ prep. For some reason, I really can't seem to find the test on 7sage
... this is supposed to be B-->A.
However, my ... that this is A-->B, which also sounds right.
(1) A accompanies B is B-->A
(2) Always ... indicator, which means A-->B; ergo, AB