Cat shoots owner.

"I said MORE CATNIP, bitch!" t BLAM

Anyone?

C. looks right to me.

Lyra, I can't get mathy in my explanation, but no, there's nothing wrong with the question.

If Jenny hits a home run, her team will win. Given that this is true, what else also must be true?

a. If the team won, Jenny hit a home run.

Answer (a.) is not necessarily true (it is not a must, if condition A (her hitting the run) is fulfilled), because we don't know that the *only* way they could win is if she hit the home run, just that it is one way. For all we know, she could have struck out, but Janie could have been up next, hit a run, and they could still win.

b. If Jenny didn't hit a home run, the team tied.

We don't know how many outs are left, so we can't say this must be true.

d. All of the above.

Because we have no reason to believe either (a) or (b) must be true we cannot choose (d).

Here's what we know:

If Jenny hits a home run, her team will win. Given that this is true, what else also must be true?

c. If the team didn't win, Jenny didn't hit a home run.

It is set up in the question that if she hits the run, they've won. Since that condition is worded that way, if condition 1 is fulfilled, result 2 will happen (it's a guarantee of sorts), we know that if result 2 does not happen, condition 1 could not have been fulfilled.

I think, is that it's not a very good real world situation, since there are easily imaginable scenarios where the first statement is more of an extreme probability than an absolute.

This is a good way of saying it. Once it is probabilistic it turns into a cogntive error called confusion of inverse probabilities. And in real life it's almost always probabilistic.

I got C. as correct, too.

we know that if result B does not happen, condition A could not have been fulfilled.

Okay, but ... ack. The logic still doesn't seem very logical to me. I think would have needed the question to be worded, "If and only if Jenny hits a home run, her team will win" for me to get the answer, because otherwise I start overthinking. Is the "If this is true" part supposed to serve the same function as "if and only if" would in my wording?

I think, is that it's not a very good real world situation, since there are easily imaginable scenarios where the first statement is more of an extreme probability than an absolute.

This is a good way of saying it. Once it is probabilistic it turns into a cogntive error called confusion of inverse probabilities. And in real life it's almost always probabilistic.

I think it was easy for me because I'm not mathy, maybe?

It's baseball. We can deduce it is the bottom of the last inning, because that's the only way one run can guarantee a win.

It's baseball. We don't know how many outs there are, so we can't say Jenny's their last hope. We just know if she hits a run, her team wins. That disqualifies answer A.

It's baseball. We know it is the bottom of the last/ninth. We don't know how many outs there are, so we can't say the game will end in a tie if Jenny doesn't score. If there are 0 to 2 outs, there are still other things that could happen. Jenny could just get on base, and the next batter(s) could either hit a home run(s), or at least drive Jenny in, to score. If there are only 0 or 1 outs, Jenny could get out, but there could still be hope left for someone else to score.

C is a given, the way the condition is worded.

D can't be true, because it is not a must that either a or b is true.

If Jenny hits a home run, her team will win

Lyra, maybe it would help to think about it as an equivalent to "if you're a human being, you have two legs". There are way more things with two legs than people (birds, for example, or vampires), so the group of two-legged is bigger than the group of human beings, and it's possible to have two legs and not be human.

However, if you don't have two legs, you definitely can't be a human (and a bird, and a vampire, and anything else that has two legs). So "if X then Y" is the same as "if not Y, then not X" - Y is the bigger group, it can include X inside it.

[Edit: I know it's not the same, in strict logical terms, but it helps me think about these things. Also, how strange it is to skip hundreds of posts and land into the middle of a conversation I can take part in]

Okay, but ... ack. The logic still doesn't seem very logical to me. I think would have needed the question to be worded, "If and only if Jenny hits a home run, her team will win" for me to get the answer, because otherwise I start overthinking. Is the "If this is true" part supposed to serve the same function as "if and only if" would in my wording?

I think you're ignoring the "will" -- and "is true" the guarantee part of the question as worded.

If Jenny hits a home run, her team will win. Given that this is true, what else also must be true?

It's not an if and only if question. They are not stating Jenny's hitting a homer is The Only Way to win. That would lead to different answers. That's a different question. They're giving you the condition, and the definite outcome if that condition is met. It is conditonal she will hit the run. But if that condition is met, her team will win (that's the guarantee).

Here's some examples, LJ.

One way to look at it is that "if Jenny hits a home run" can also mean "if Jenny crosses home plate." Under either circumstance, the team will win. So:

a. If the team won, Jenny hit a home run.

No, because Jenny could've hit a single, double, triple, or walked, etc., and then scored later. Not hitting a home run does not necessarily mean you are out (except on Home Run Derby).

b. If Jenny didn't hit a home run, the team tied.

No, because we have no idea what the score is, or how many runners are on base.

c. If the team didn't win, Jenny didn't hit a home run.

Yes, since we know they would've won no matter what if she did hit a home run, then she must not have hit one.