Logic Problem!

[Gibsie]

Consider the following statement: "Every day this week, if I have $10 in my pocket, then I will eat lunch at KFC."
If this statement is false, then which of the following statements must be true?

a. I will never eat lunch at KFC this week.
b. I will never have $10 in my pocket this week.
c. There is a day this week when I will have lunch at KFC.
d. There is a day this week when I will not have lunch at KFC.
e. None of the above

Reasons for conclusions, please

Edited cos SlowwHand is too smart!

[Provost Harrison]

e

[Provost Harrison]

Reasons will cost though

[SlowwHand]

b. I will never have $10 in my pocket this week.

[Provost Harrison]

You ought to demand a payrise SlowwHand Although with that answer, I wouldn't recommend it

[SlowwHand]

The question is in future tense. "Every day this week, if I have $10 in my pocket, then I will eat lunch at KFC."

Whether intentional or not "d. There is a day this week when I did not have lunch at KFC." is past tense.

That's one out.

"a. I will never eat lunch at KFC this week."
Maybe not quite the 10 dollars, maybe going out of town, who knows?

"c. There is a day this week when I will have lunch at KFC." Although prophetic, at least the tense is correct.


At least I have reasons, Provost Poontang.

[Provost Harrison]

The question suffers from really sh*t wording, but as I interpreted it was that there was a condition that if on any one day he had $10 in his pocket he would eat a KFC on that day. This statement was false, therefore, no such condition exists. Therefore it is impossible to draw any conclusion, and thus, answer e

[SlowwHand]

You better figure it out before KH comes in and observes that "according to Archimedes' Conundrum, we need to first formulate this analysis by deducting the length of the hippopotamus of a triangle."

[Provost Harrison]

Lap up the pwnage, Texan

[Wernazuma III]

This example is really badly worded.


a) ino, since he could one day not go to KFC, making the statement false, but still go another day.
b) is stupid, since having or not having 10$ is no parameter for the truth of the statement.
c) can't be, because if he never has 10$, he's "allowed" not to go to KFC all week without making the statement wrong.
d) is closest (ignoring the wrong tempus): even if he got 10$ every day, at least once he doesn't go (which imakes the statement is false).

[Gibsie]

D doesn't have to be true if the statement is false however, as he could have $5 every day and still go. The statement isn't proved false, however, although it can still be false even if never effected.

Yeah, I'm not sure, I say E myself.

[Provost Harrison]

Well how can you conclude (d)? Not only is there no data regarding his financial status, there is no rule on how to apply any such data if it exists. He could have eaten there on any number of the days in that week, including none. It is impossible to conclude, (e) is the nearest answer (only because the correct answer would be the fact that it is impossible to reach a conclusion, which is none of (a) to (d))

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Gibsie
D doesn't have to be true if the statement is false however, as he could have $5 every day and still go. The statement isn't proved false, however, although it can still be false even if never effected.

Yeah, I'm not sure, I say E myself.

Time out, Buckwheat.
Your question stipulates the possession of 10 dollars.
If he has $9.99, that isn't 10 dollars.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Time out, Buckwheat.
Your question stipulates the possession of 10 dollars.
If he has $9.99, that isn't 10 dollars.

No it doesn't, it states a condition: what will happen if he has $10. Nowhere does it state that he actually does.

[SlowwHand]

If he has. That sets a parameter.