All about flooble | fun stuff | Get a free chatterbox | Free JavaScript | Avatars    
perplexus dot info

Home > Logic
Your conclusion requested (Posted on 2016-11-03) Difficulty: 3 of 5
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?

No Solution Yet Submitted by Ady TZIDON    
Rating: 3.6667 (3 votes)

Comments: ( Back to comment list | You must be logged in to post comments.)
re(4): Answer .... to your questions | Comment 7 of 9 |
(In reply to re(3): Answer .... to your questions by Steve Herman)

I think Ady had in mind an ambiguity, and in fact disagrees with me, at least in part.


I had a different interpretation of to what "but not both" applies: I had thought it applied to not both a king and ace in the second of two or'ed conditions, whereas Math Man probably was correct in his interpretation as applying to the two or'ed statements themselves, making them an exclusive or.

  Posted by Charlie on 2016-11-12 15:07:54
Please log in:
Login:
Password:
Remember me:
Sign up! | Forgot password


Search:
Search body:
Forums (0)
Newest Problems
Random Problem
FAQ | About This Site
Site Statistics
New Comments (2)
Unsolved Problems
Top Rated Problems
This month's top
Most Commented On

Chatterbox:
Copyright © 2002 - 2017 by Animus Pactum Consulting. All rights reserved. Privacy Information