Difference between revisions of "1974 AHSME Problems/Problem 13"
m (added category) |
(→Solution) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
From this venn diagram, clearly "If <math> p </math>, then <math> q </math>." is true. However, since <math> p </math> is fully contained in <math> q </math>, the statement "If not <math> q </math>, then not <math> p </math>." is also true, and so a statement and its contrapositive are equivalent. | From this venn diagram, clearly "If <math> p </math>, then <math> q </math>." is true. However, since <math> p </math> is fully contained in <math> q </math>, the statement "If not <math> q </math>, then not <math> p </math>." is also true, and so a statement and its contrapositive are equivalent. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Solution== | ||
| + | Let's consider the following case of dogs. If p = true then the dog is 100% blue. If q = true then the dog is 100% red. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is a valid solution to if P is true, then Q is false, or if the dog is 100% blue then the dog is not 100% red. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Now let's look at the options: | ||
| + | <math> \mathrm{(A)\ } \text{``P is true or Q is false."} \qquad </math> ---> If the dog is 100% blue or the dog is not 100% red. This statement makes no sense. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <math> \mathrm{(B) \ }\text{``If Q is false then P is true."} \qquad </math> ---> If the dog is not 100% red, then the dog is 100% blue. This does not make sense, as the dog could be other colors, like white, or black, or yellow. My dog is brown! | ||
| + | |||
| + | <math> \mathrm{(C) \ } \text{``If P is false then Q is true."} \qquad </math> ---> If the dog is not 100% blue, then the dog is 100% red. Again, this fails for other colors of dogs. This is dogscrimination! | ||
| + | |||
| + | <math> \mathrm{(D) \ } \text{``If Q is true then P is false."} \qquad </math> ---> If the dog is 100% red, then it is not 100% blue. This statement makes logical sense, and is correct. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <math> \mathrm{(E) \ }\text{``If Q is true then P is true."} \qquad </math> ---> If the dog is 100% red, then the dog is 100% blue. This does not make sense, because we know the color of the dog, a dog cannot be two colors at once. Actually in quantum mechanics maybe, but not for this AHSME problem. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The statement that makes the most sense is <math> \boxed{\text{D}} </math> | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
{{AHSME box|year=1974|num-b=12|num-a=14}} | {{AHSME box|year=1974|num-b=12|num-a=14}} | ||
[[Category:Logic Problems]] | [[Category:Logic Problems]] | ||
| + | {{MAA Notice}} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:04, 27 June 2024
Contents
Problem
Which of the following is equivalent to "If P is true, then Q is false."?
Solution
Remember that a statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, which is formed by first negating the hypothesis and conclusion and then switching them. In this case, the contrapositive of "If P is true, then Q is false." is "If Q is true, then P is false."
The fact that a statement's contrapositive is logically equivalent to it can easily be seen from a venn diagram arguement.
From this venn diagram, clearly "If
, then
." is true. However, since
is fully contained in
, the statement "If not
, then not
." is also true, and so a statement and its contrapositive are equivalent.
Solution
Let's consider the following case of dogs. If p = true then the dog is 100% blue. If q = true then the dog is 100% red.
This is a valid solution to if P is true, then Q is false, or if the dog is 100% blue then the dog is not 100% red.
Now let's look at the options:
---> If the dog is 100% blue or the dog is not 100% red. This statement makes no sense.
---> If the dog is not 100% red, then the dog is 100% blue. This does not make sense, as the dog could be other colors, like white, or black, or yellow. My dog is brown!
---> If the dog is not 100% blue, then the dog is 100% red. Again, this fails for other colors of dogs. This is dogscrimination!
---> If the dog is 100% red, then it is not 100% blue. This statement makes logical sense, and is correct.
---> If the dog is 100% red, then the dog is 100% blue. This does not make sense, because we know the color of the dog, a dog cannot be two colors at once. Actually in quantum mechanics maybe, but not for this AHSME problem.
The statement that makes the most sense is
See Also
| 1974 AHSME (Problems • Answer Key • Resources) | ||
| Preceded by Problem 12 |
Followed by Problem 14 | |
| 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 | ||
| All AHSME Problems and Solutions | ||
These problems are copyrighted © by the Mathematical Association of America, as part of the American Mathematics Competitions.