Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Logic Problems at the Court II.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22 replies to this topic

#11 Naruki

Naruki

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 29 September 2007 - 12:47 PM

If the prisoner is guilty, it may or may not matter if he worked on his own. What Plaintiff said could ONLY be untrue, if the prisoner was guilty and worked alone. So the solicitor's claim would immediately implicate that this is actually the case. That's not really helping his client, if you ask me



The original statement implied a false causal relationship: that guilt in that case required an accomplice. The statement is untrue because no such relationship exists. It matters not whether the defendent is actually guilty or not.

"If the sky is blue, then you are a raspberry."

That statement is untrue, EVEN IF you actually are a raspberry. The reason it is untrue is because it implies a false causal relationship. The color of the sky cannot cause you to be a particular type of fruit.
  • 0

#12 slmo

slmo

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 09 October 2007 - 08:06 PM

what about us blueberries?
  • 0

#13 a fake mustache

a fake mustache

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 11:56 AM

The answer is 'the solicitor did not help his client'. The answer provided firstly is incorrect because the word 'lie' is used, what should be used is 'false'.

Naruki's answer of "not enough information" or "invalid" question is incorrect for
the mere fact that this question deals with logic, as in formal logic. There is enough information for a logic problem.

If Q > P is not a true statement, then that means that Q is true and P is false. The conclusion from the original answer is correct (minus 'lie'). I know this has all been said, but after having been said it was concluded that there is something wrong with the question itself, and that is not the case.
  • 0

#14 oranfry

oranfry

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 14 January 2008 - 12:04 AM

I agree with a fake mustache. There is really no need to humour anyone who says that there is not enough information.

At the heart of this logic problem is the phenomenon which occurs when you deny a conditional statement. A conditional statement says so little that to deny one actually says a lot. In this case it says all this: that there was no accomplice and that the client is guilty. It's just hard to get your head around how it could be that the solicitor is saying so much with such a simple statement, which is probably what is stumping most people and causing them to fixate on issues about the exact meaning of "lie", whether the lawyers are telling the truth or not and so on.

This shows formally how the solicitor said so much. Let, G mean 'the client is guilty', and A mean 'the client had an accomplice':
The solicitor said: not ( if G then A )
which is equivalent to: not( not G or A ) [material implication]
which is equivalent to: not not G and not A [demorgan's theorem]
which is equivalent to: G and not A [double negation]
which expands to: 'the client is guilty' and not 'the client had an accomplice'
  • 0

#15 nando

nando

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 21 March 2008 - 10:28 PM

no
  • 0

#16 Zutara21

Zutara21

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 15 April 2008 - 09:51 PM

I don't believe the solicitor helped, no hindered, his client.

It's an if and then statement.

If the first thing happens, then the second thing will...

IE: If Tommy studies for his test, then he will get an A.

The fact that he says, That's(that is) not true!, means to say that he is in fact claimed innocent, as in the face of the Lawyer by his statement. Yet, this is only heresay by the solicitor and will not hold up in court without solid evidence behind it.

Believe me, I work for lawyers. -_-"
  • 0

#17 rene83

rene83

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 236 posts

Posted 17 June 2008 - 08:24 PM

Spoiler for My answer
B)) no offense to any attorneys reading this :lol:
  • 0

#18 jhyatt455

jhyatt455

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 25 March 2009 - 08:26 PM

This is my thought... it is not as pretty and filled with logical jargon like everyone else's posts... but I like to K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). ...and I am mighty stupid most of the time. :)


Spoiler for My two cents.

Edited by jhyatt455, 25 March 2009 - 08:27 PM.

  • 0

#19 SKULLOK

SKULLOK

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 06:39 AM

Logic Problems at the Court II. - Back to the Logic Problems
A man accused of a crime, hired an attorney whose statements were always admitted by the court as undisputable truth. The following exchange took place in court.
Prosecutor: “If the accused committed the crime, he had an accomplice.”
Defender: “That is not true!”
Did the attorney help his client?


Spoiler for Solution


Spoiler for old wording

it didn't necessarily help his client, but it also didn't necessarily NOT help him either. It could mean one of two things:

one, if he did the crime, he did it alone,

or two, he did not do the crime with an accomplice, as he didn't do it at all.
  • 0

#20 sieger

sieger

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 22 April 2009 - 12:55 PM

If we take the prosecuters statement as truth, than the defence attorney did help his client by saying that he did not have an accomplis, and therefore did not commit the crime.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users