The butler did it only if the maid did it; and the maid did it just in case it was done with a revolver. Now, either the butler did it or the maid did it unless, of course, the gardener or the cook did it. Provided that the cook did it, it was not done with a revolver. Furthermore, if it was not done with an axe, then the gardener did not do it. If it was done with an axe or a revolver, then it was done both swiftly and with premeditation. Now, the facts clearly indicate that it was not done swiftly. Therefore, the ________ did it.
The cook.
With neither an axe or a revolver.
Yeah, it’s the cook with his axe.
Nah, it couldn’t be with either an axe or a revolver because the text says that they would bring about a swift death. And the facts clearly indicate that it was not done swiftly.
The murder weapon used isn’t mentioned in the text.
I’m not sure what this ‘and the maid did it just in case it was done with a revolver’ means. The maid couldn’t have done it, yet that quote says that she did do it. The rest of it seems to make sense though.
it was the detective with the hemlock…
-Imp
sorry
“The facts clearly indicate it was done swiftly” is not a truth functional statement. So it does not necessarilly follow that it was done swiftly.
Therefore anyone could have done it, as none of them can be ruled out.
Swiftly = no axe, revolver. No axe, no gardner. No revolver, no maid. No maid, no butler.
The cook did it.
bows
This is completely extranious:
“Provided that the cook did it, it was not done with a revolver.”
This would read better if it were written like this:
“the maid did it just in the case it was done with a revolver”
b[/b]
C’mon then , what’s the answer?
I’m just gagging to know. Please reveal all.
okay so I decided to tackle this bitch after drinking a six pack of mickeys. I pulled out my symbolic logic book and I wrote up the first part of the proof
[Let “:” equal the sideways U in symbolic logic that means “if…then”)
1.~S
2.(AvR) : S.P
3. ~A : ~G
4. C : ~ R
5. (BvM) v (G vC)
6. R : M
7. M : B :. X
Now mind, my symbolic logic is real rusty and I figured out the answer - the cook, but I can’t fucking write out how I did it in symbolic shorthand!!! Plus I don’t have the cook’s weapon.
Verbally
It wasn’t done swiftly
therefore neither the axe nor the revolver were used (as Swift and Premeditated are BOTH Necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions)
Therefore the gardener didn’t do it, nor did the maid or the butler
Therefore the cook did it, but I 've run out of letters with which to kill people
How many lightbulbs does it take to change a philosopher?
One
Hermes,
Your post is keeping me awake. What I see is a factual relationship between the antecedents and the consequent. Not a logical one. Think indicative conditional.
So, it wasn’t done swiftly according to the facts, isn’t this a hint? Can we actually logically infer from this who the murderer was? God, I hope not.
" Now, the facts clearly indicate that it was not done swiftly. "
Exactly, where in the given premises does it clearly indicate that the murder was not done swiftly?
(okay, this is my bad)
nowhere. That the facts clearly indicate that the murder was not done swiftly is one of the premises. Otherwise you couldn’t figut out the whole deal
h3m
Can we say chestnut.
(B → M) & (M = R)
(B v M) v (G v C)
(C → R)
(~A → ~G)
(A v R) → (S & P)
F
Therefore__________ did it.
B: Butler did it
M: Maid did it
G: Garnder did it
C: Cook did it
R: It was done with a revolver
A: It was done with an axe
S: It was done swiftly
P: It was done with premeditation
F: Now, the facts clearly indicate that it was not done swiftly.
No conclusion deductively follows from the premises. This is a bad argument. Both invalid and Unsound.
ooops.
For a simpler reasoning, just look at the " If " operator of the premises, then at this statement " Now, the facts clearly indicate that it was not done swiftly. "
(I mean “if” operator, not the verb tense I previously mentioned).
all that you folks have pointed out would explains why I couldn’t get past if R then M, if M then B therefore R then B
evil murderers
Silhouette:
That is correct.