Should I diagram a "might" statement as an existentialquantifier? Like "If Jack is smart, he might eat healthy." But, it doesn't have to be the case that Jack ever eats healthy, so that's why I don't think it's correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong
How do we represent "Many," when we come across it in a passage or AC that uses other quantifiers like Most and Some. Do we write it out like Some? I just came across Many in PT A; Q. 14, AC D and I didn't know if I should represent Many as Some in this ...
... Because an universal quantifier/conditional logic dictates ... />
The difference for existentialquantifier is the latter speaks for ... cannot translate this with existentialquantifier, bc its existence ... such as universal/existentialquantifier, bc it neither ...
... argument form because the existentialquantifier precedes the universal quantifier. When chained up ...
Rule: The existentialquantifier must precede the universal quantifier.
... don't want the existentialquantifier to come after a ... An example of an existentialquantifier preceding a universal is ... C. Some is the existentialquantifier that precedes the universal ... though these examples include existential quantifiers we cannot say ...
Can you please provide a PDF version of this entire MAP or if you have multiple files you can send it to me as well. I need this for visualization perspective! Big picture perspective!
... (vice versa with existential) is blended with the existential idea? Weakening maybe ... great job explaining how negating existential / conditional ideas was accomplished, but ...
For LR clearly. When you see a question involves heavy Lawgic say MBT MBF Parallel reasoning etc.. Do you start mapping the lawgic right away or read it first then read it again and Map it out?