|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Would you? | |||
| Yes |
   
|
68 | 94.44% |
| No |
  
|
4 | 5.56% |
| Voters: 72. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
08-12-2007, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting logic question
#2
edit: for those of you who said #1... how would you interpret the following sentence? "no head injury is too small to be treated" if you think this means the same as the OP statement, then there is a problem. 
|
|
#12
08-12-2007, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
i'm glad we're getting a dispersion of beliefs here.
i'll weigh in later on tonight or tomorrow on both threads... as well as the results from the two posts and why i made them. Barron
|
|
#13
08-12-2007, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
The implication is clear [/ QUOTE ] thats all i really wanted to get to. no need to be insanely precise, but i get your point. i think it is good enough for govt work as it is though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Barron
|
|
#14
08-12-2007, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
The literal meaning is "don't treat anything." But literal meaning is for douches. And I mean vaginal washes.
|
|
#16
08-12-2007, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
All your head injury are belong to us.
|
|
#17
08-12-2007, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
The statement says that any head injury should not be treated only because it is too small. It does not, however, explicitly claim that all head injuries should be ignored.
|
|
#20
08-12-2007, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting logic question
[ QUOTE ]
if i were taking a logic test, i would say #2. if i came across this sentence in a medical guide, obv i would assume that the author meant to write the opposite. [/ QUOTE ] I could care less what you assume the author meant to write.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
