wouldn't seatwork 8 po, be an invalid one? since there are 2 cases that would satisfy the 2nd premise and the other one will yield an invalid result for the conclusion? just wan't a clarification po, because I'm having a hard time understanding this part, thank you po
Hello @J P.. you're correct in saying that there are two cases and that the second case (which I did not indicate in the video) will have the set of attractive students contain all the A students. But I think that case will still be consistent with the conclusion "Some A students are attractive" since the quantifier "some" only require that there should exist at least one A student inside the set of Attractive students. I hope that helps.
Hello, I noticed a problem: (it might not be a problem in its usual sense): You were using the diagram to drew the conclusion (in seatwork 8), based on whether the circles have a common intersection or not, but this is problematic. I think there two cases here, how the drawing could be interpreted: 1., If there is an existing intersection of two (or more) groups, then it mush have at least one element. (I think you used this.) 2., An existing intersection of two group does not indicate whether it has an element or not. For shorter writing I named the group of A students "A" students sitting in the first row "B" and attractive students "C". So interpretation 1. cannot be valid, because (since there is a visually existing section) that would also indicate that sections like "(A and C crossection) - (A and B crossection)) " (sorry not sure if this is the correct term, and by this i meant the students who are A students, and also attractive, but not sitting in the front row) would also have at least one element, when this was not indicated in the text format. So using this interpretation gets us to the text and the drawing not matching each other. Interpretation 2. also cannot be valid, since the diagram did not indicate that "A and B and C crossection" (both attractive, front row, and A sudents) has an element, when we know from the text that it has. This also gets us to the text and diagram not matching each other. I think the correct form would be using the 2. interpretation, but with marking whether a section has or not has elements when there is information on that. I think putting somehing like an "E" mark into a section with elements to indicate, or graying out a no element section would be suitable for this purpose.
I cant thank you enough! this is the best method I found after watching videos for hours
THANKYOU FOR THE VERY CLEAR EXPLANATION
Thank you sir for your explaination❤️
Ty, Sir.
Thank you so much sir....
Thank you sir and God bless. Pde po bang mga-upload p po kayo ng maraming videos n ganito? More on complicated questions po?
thank you po
What is the 3 dots mean??
wouldn't seatwork 8 po, be an invalid one? since there are 2 cases that would satisfy the 2nd premise and the other one will yield an invalid result for the conclusion? just wan't a clarification po, because I'm having a hard time understanding this part, thank you po
Hello @J P.. you're correct in saying that there are two cases and that the second case (which I did not indicate in the video) will have the set of attractive students contain all the A students. But I think that case will still be consistent with the conclusion "Some A students are attractive" since the quantifier "some" only require that there should exist at least one A student inside the set of Attractive students. I hope that helps.
@@levskt6552 thank you po for the clarification, greatly appreciate it po, I think I understand the topic better now
Hi Kouhai Krew
Hello, I noticed a problem: (it might not be a problem in its usual sense): You were using the diagram to drew the conclusion (in seatwork 8), based on whether the circles have a common intersection or not, but this is problematic.
I think there two cases here, how the drawing could be interpreted:
1.,
If there is an existing intersection of two (or more) groups, then it mush have at least one element. (I think you used this.)
2.,
An existing intersection of two group does not indicate whether it has an element or not.
For shorter writing I named the group of A students "A" students sitting in the first row "B" and attractive students "C".
So interpretation 1. cannot be valid, because (since there is a visually existing section) that would also indicate that sections like "(A and C crossection) - (A and B crossection)) " (sorry not sure if this is the correct term, and by this i meant the students who are A students, and also attractive, but not sitting in the front row) would also have at least one element, when this was not indicated in the text format. So using this interpretation gets us to the text and the drawing not matching each other.
Interpretation 2. also cannot be valid, since the diagram did not indicate that "A and B and C crossection" (both attractive, front row, and A sudents) has an element, when we know from the text that it has. This also gets us to the text and diagram not matching each other.
I think the correct form would be using the 2. interpretation, but with marking whether a section has or not has elements when there is information on that. I think putting somehing like an "E" mark into a section with elements to indicate, or graying out a no element section would be suitable for this purpose.