Logic Problem!
 

e

b. I will never have $10 in my pocket this week.

The question is in future tense. "Every day this week, if I have $10 in my pocket, then I will eat lunch at KFC."

Whether intentional or not "d. There is a day this week when I did not have lunch at KFC." is past tense.

That's one out.

"a. I will never eat lunch at KFC this week."
Maybe not quite the 10 dollars, maybe going out of town, who knows?

"c. There is a day this week when I will have lunch at KFC." Although prophetic, at least the tense is correct.


At least I have reasons, Provost Poontang. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/biggrin.gif

You better figure it out before KH comes in and observes that "according to Archimedes' Conundrum, we need to first formulate this analysis by deducting the length of the hippopotamus of a triangle."

This example is really badly worded.


a) ino, since he could one day not go to KFC, making the statement false, but still go another day.
b) is stupid, since having or not having 10$ is no parameter for the truth of the statement.
c) can't be, because if he never has 10$, he's "allowed" not to go to KFC all week without making the statement wrong.
d) is closest (ignoring the wrong tempus): even if he got 10$ every day, at least once he doesn't go (which imakes the statement is false).

Well how can you conclude (d)? Not only is there no data regarding his financial status, there is no rule on how to apply any such data if it exists. He could have eaten there on any number of the days in that week, including none. It is impossible to conclude, (e) is the nearest answer (only because the correct answer would be the fact that it is impossible to reach a conclusion, which is none of (a) to (d))

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Time out, Buckwheat.
Your question stipulates the possession of 10 dollars.
If he has $9.99, that isn't 10 dollars. No it doesn't, it states a condition: what will happen if he has $10. Nowhere does it state that he actually does.

Yeah, but it doesn't tell us if he ever has more or less than $10 on any day that week...

And that's another point. Does having $10.01 negate the statement? It does say 10 dollars, not at least 10 dollars.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And that's another point. Does having $10.01 negate the statement? It does say 10 dollars, not at least 10 dollars. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/banghead.gif

No, the statement is automatically negated. The condition does not exist!

Because nowhere are we told how much money is in his pocket!

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well how can you conclude (d)? Not only is there no data regarding his financial status, there is no rule on how to apply any such data if it exists. He could have eaten there on any number of the days in that week, including none. It is impossible to conclude, (e) is the nearest answer (only because the correct answer would be the fact that it is impossible to reach a conclusion, which is none of (a) to (d)) The OP states that the statement has been falsified. It can only be falsified if he had more than $10 at least one day.
If he had less than $10 every day, he could do whatever he want without making the statement false.

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
You're inferring something into the statement that isn't there... What do I infer?

For each day there are several options:
a=he has less than $10
b=more than $10.

x=eat at KFC
y=doesn't eat at KFC

So, these are the permutations with true/false values:

a.x=TRUE
a.y=TRUE (since the statement doesn't specify at all what he ought to do when he has less than $10)

b.x=TRUE (that's the case specified by the statement)
b.y=FALSE

So, if we want a false statement we must have one "b.y" day, which means, at least one day he didn't eat at KFC.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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