Logic Problem!

[Provost Harrison]

But the statement doesn't infer a conclusion, just a condition.

[Provost Harrison]

I will put it another way. If the statement is false, this indicates that he has eaten KFC and had $10 or not eaten KFC and had $10. We still don't know, because we just don't know how much money he has had on any given day. Therefore (e).

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The statement doesn't say if he has less than or more than, it says if he has $10. Nor does it tell us if he actually ate at KFC or not.

No, it doesn't. But we are told to assume that the statement is false. That's the important point.
Thus we can look at his possible behaviours and check if this behavior is OK with the statement or contradicts it. We're looking for a contradicting behaviour...

[Provost Harrison]

It's not that simple - one is dependent on the other. The answers only give single cases. If one of the answers were "He ate at KFC and didn't have $10" that is fine, but none of the answers form any such association.

[Gibsie]

I'm not sure if his actions must have been proven false, but his intent to eat there would have to have been falsified.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I will put it another way. If the statement is false, this indicates that he has eaten KFC and had $10 or not eaten KFC and had $10.

No, the boldened bit wouldn't be false, that's exactly what he ought to do according to the statement.

We still don't know, because we just don't know how much money he has had on any given day.

That's why I checked all possibilities.

[Provost Harrison]

Well let us say if he never ate at KFC that week, he would have had $10. If he had, he wouldn't have had $10 that week. But we don't have one piece of information to infer the other. Therefore none of them are correct. You see?

[Provost Harrison]

Sheesh, the statement says he can only eat at KFC if he doesn't have $10 if it is false. We do not know how much money he has!. And the same is true of the reverse - we do not know how much money he had because we do not know if he ate at KFC.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I'm not sure if his actions must have been proven false, but his intent to eat there would have to have been falsified.

Then, this is no logic question at all. Are we trying to guess his intentions now. Or searching for weird parameters that would tell us his intentions are not true?
"I've seen you in that shop. You were tempted to buy this bag with your $10 and not go to KFC. Hah!"

[Provost Harrison]

It's a sh*t question admittedly, pretty ambiguous. Gibsie, shame on you *slaps wrists*

[Gibsie]

No, I mean the statement is a lie if someone says they will eat at KFC if they have $10, but actually won't, only they never actually have $10.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well let us say if he never ate at KFC that week, he would have had $10.
If he had, he wouldn't have had $10 that week. But we don't have one piece of information to infer the other. Therefore none of them are correct. You see?

For my conclusion I don't have to infer that at all, you're on the wrong track.
Read my posts again, I don't say "If he doesn't eat at KFC, he has more than $10". or anything similar.

I say, "If he has more than 10$ and eats at KFC, he doesn't contradict his statement." and "If he has more than 10$ and does not eat at KFC, he contradicts his statement." and "If he has less than $10, he can do what he wants because he never claimed anything about such a case."

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Gibsie
No, I mean the statement is a lie if someone says they will eat at KFC if they have $10, but actually won't, only they never actually have $10.

So you say the statement can be false even if he never reaches $10 because he wouldn't have gone to KFC even if he had had more.

Please ask God or the Great Inquisitor, I can't look into people's souls.
We have no good parameters for guessing intentions, we can only judge the action.

[Provost Harrison]

Be careful. It says 'has $10'. Now that could mean that he wouldn't buy a KFC if he has more or less than $10, or it could mean he has to have at least $10. But it doesn't say that much so you can't make that inference about this argument - you have to stay within the context of the original definition.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Be careful. It says 'has $10'. Now that could mean that he wouldn't buy a KFC if he has more or less than $10, or it could mean he has to have at least $10. But it doesn't say that much so you can't make that inference about this argument - you have to stay within the context of the original definition.

IIRC, Gibsie said we should treat the statement as "at least $10".
If it means "exactly $10", you can still apply the analogous reason, but the probability that his actions don't affect the truth-value of the statement rises considerably, since having "exactly $10" is not very probable.

In order to make that statement false, he'd have to have exactly $10 at least one day and not go to KFC.