Law School Discussion

Can somebody shed some light on this conditional controversy?

Can somebody shed some light on this conditional controversy?
« on: September 20, 2005, 12:17:28 PM »
I saw this commercial and it involved a condtional statement, so, just for kicks, I thought I'd diagram it.  It's led to confusion.


Commercial basically concludes with:
Chances are, if you don't know (the name), we probably do


I diagram as:
You don't know ---> We probably do

The contrapositive:
~We probably do ---> ~You don't know
OR
We probably don't ---> You do know


The contrapositive is supposed to, in essence, be saying the same thing as the original statement.  When I read the contrapositive, it seems to be indicating something different.

Any help?

r.

  • ****
  • 1053
  • Hey psycho stalker spy!
    • View Profile
Re: Can somebody shed some light on this conditional controversy?
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2005, 12:21:08 PM »
Well the whole thing is ruined by teh "Chances are" preface. Basically, when it is left to chance, anything can happen...thus, conditions are worthless.

River

  • ****
  • 359
    • View Profile
Re: Can somebody shed some light on this conditional controversy?
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2005, 12:31:15 PM »
Commercial basically concludes with:
Chances are, if you don't know (the name), we probably do
=Here the"chances" means possibility, so the possibility for us to know depends on your not knowing.
=if you do not know----the possibility for us to know is better(higher)
 Contra: if the possibility for us to know is worse(or lower)---you know

Yet, without the full text of argument, it is hard to diagram it completely.


XYZZY

Re: Can somebody shed some light on this conditional controversy?
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2005, 12:36:52 PM »

You have to think of it in terms of sufficient and necessary.

if sufficient then necessary.

In your case you have:
if (you don't know) then we PROBABLY do.

A probably is not a NECESSARY condition.. it's a potential, not an actuality.  See the difference?  you can't do deductive reasoning with that.

The only thing you can conclude is the subject and antecedent are not mutually exclusive.