Billy Bud: Earlier, I said that if I see one more TV show ... ...
If Billy's statements are true, which of the following can be concluded?
(A) Billy did not eat his hat.
(B) ...
(C) ...
(D) ...
(E) ...
*This question is included in
Exercise Set 1: Intro to Conditionals
Replies to This Thread: 2
|
----
Posted: 05/27/2011 09:21
Billy Bud said if he saw a TV show he'd eat his hat. However, he viewed a movie and movies are not the same as TV shows. Therefore, he should not have eaten his hat.
Admin
Reply 1 of 2
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 05/27/2011 15:19
Arcadia's Response:
Well played. You've clearly got an understanding of basic conditionals, and the language in this passage is ambiguous.
If you take a "TV Show" to be anything on TV--a half hour comedy, an hour-long drama, a made-for-TV-movie, or a feature-length movie shown on TV--then the solution given makes sense. You can conclude that a head covering was eaten.
If, however, you take "TV Shows" to be programs made specifically for television, then you are correct. If TV shows aren't movies, you cannot conclude that Billy Bud ate his hat. It's worth noting that, assuming you consider TV shows and movies to be different, it cannot be concluded that Billy DID NOT eat his hat. You simply cannot conclude that Billy DID eat his hat. That is, you can't say for sure whether he did or did not eat his hat.
That said, we think that the language used is too ambiguous, and we will revise it for the next update.
Thanks for your comment I MCW, we appreciate it.
Reply 2 of 2
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 12/08/2012 15:01
it didn't say tv show, it said on tv.
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 04/03/2012 16:20
Billy Bud said that he would eat his hat, however, it is not clear whether he ate it already or if he will eat it in the future.
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 04/14/2012 08:18
This example is "heterosexist.". It assumes the gender of the "chubby lead."
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 04/14/2012 18:24
A head covering is not necessarily a hat. Could be a baseball cap, etc.
Thus you cannot conclude that a head covering was ingested but rather a "hat" was ingested
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 05/09/2012 16:30
Can someone explain to me why it would be a head covering? He indeed said if he seen one more TV show he'd eat his hat but instead this was a movie. So as I questioned this argument I thought it could be, "he didn't eat his hat."
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 12/08/2012 15:05
I chose "e" because head covering doesn't necessarily mean hat. I cover my hair or head with a scarf but could also do it with a plastic bag or shower cap and that doesn't make a scarf a hat it just makes it a head covering. the statement is if x happens then I will eat my hat; not head covering.
