i. If there is a king in the hand then there is an ace, or if there isn’t a king in the hand then there is an ace, but not both.
ii. There is a king in the hand.
Given the above premises, what can you infer?
i. There is an ace or there is no king or there is a king or there is an ace and not a king
ii. needs no rewriting.
Since there is a king, per ii, one of the or'ed conditions in i is met, so the other factors involved in premise i are irrelevant.
The only thing we know is there is a king in the hand.
That is, the second part of premise i might be the true part, based on the falsehood of the premise part of the if...then... construct of that second part making that second part the true part of the or.
Posted by Charlie
on 2016-11-03 09:22:32