A question of logic, let me ask you

When only one is fake:

1 and 2 contradict each other, and it can be seen that the false is either 1 or 2, and whether 1 is false or 2 is false, 3 has no effect, that is, it is impossible to judge the next problem.

When only one is true:

If one of 1 and 3 is true, it does not affect whether the other is true, so in the case of only one, 1 and 3 must be false.

then 2 is true. i.e. 1, 3 is false, 2 is true.

In this case: it is known that the director is not a doctor and there is no doctor in the institute.

When only one sentence is false, let 1 be false, because 1 is included in 3, then 3 is also false and is not true. So 1 is true, that is, the director is a doctor.

And 1 is true, 2 must be false, and since only one is false, 3 is true. All 10 of them are doctors.

If only one sentence is true, then 1 is true, then 2 and 3 are false. Because 2 and 1 are opposed, it is false. And 3 contains 1, which cannot be determined whether it is true or false. The assumption is not true.

Let 2 be true, then 1 and 3 are false. Since 1 and 2 are opposed, it is false. And 3 contains 1, which is also true. The assumption is true. That is, the director is not a doctor.

Let 3 be true, then 1 is true. The assumption is not true.

So the director is not a doctor. It is also uncertain how many people at the institute are PhDs.

It is known that only one of the above three sentences is false, because condition 1 and condition 3 coincide (that is, condition 3 contains condition 1), so it is inferred that the director of the institute is a doctor, and if there are ten people in the institute, it is deduced that all ten people in the institute are doctors;

If only one of the above three sentences is true, because condition 1 and condition 3 coincide (i.e., condition 3 contains condition 1), it can be inferred that the director of the institute is not a doctor.

<> the subjects of the management joint examination comprehensive 199 have the subjects of the logic test;

Logic is 30 multiple-choice questions, each question is worth 2 points, a total of 60 points;

Summary. Proposition A: Wealth is not the source of happiness.

Format: First of all, wealth does not satisfy people's deepest needs. For example, wealth does not solve people's feelings of loneliness and emptiness in their hearts.

Secondly, wealth also does not bring true happiness because it is only a material pleasure and does not satisfy people's spiritual needs. Finally, wealth can also have negative effects on people, such as stress and anxiety, as wealth can be stressful and make people worry about being snatched away. Conclusion:

Therefore, it is certain that wealth is not a source of happiness.

I'm sorry I can't open **, you can only type to ask me, sorry.

Please ask me one question at a time in the form of text, dear.

But I can only post pictures.

Then you recognize the text and sort out the problem and send it to me, dear.

Launched by the following blunt propositions, the other blunt propositions of the current phalanx are true or false, not some of the popular ** is worth appreciating repeatedly.

All pop ** is a fake that deserves to be appreciated repeatedly. Some pops may not be worth appreciating over and over again, such as some low-quality pops.

sep pos p s has a dash on the s, whether this reasoning is valid or not.

is effective. SEP-POS is a high payment system, which can help merchants collect payments from consumers, and can realize cash payments and credit card payments. Its horizontal line indicates that it can support a variety of payment methods, so it works.

Please use a general rule to explain whether the following reasoning is valid Human beings have thoughts, and dogs are not human, so dogs have no thoughts.

This reasoning is invalid. From the perspective of the general rule, Huai refers to the fact that there must be a causal relationship between the premise and the conclusion of the reasoning, and there is no causal relationship between the premise and the conclusion of this reasoning, so this reasoning is invalid.

The conclusion of a valid syllogism is a proposition that proves his case and formula.

Proposition A: Wealth is not the source of happiness. Format:

First of all, wealth does not satisfy people's deepest needs. For example, wealth cannot solve people's loneliness and spiritual emptiness. Secondly, wealth cannot bring true happiness, because it is only a material state of enjoyment, and cannot satisfy people's spiritual needs.

Finally, wealth can also have negative effects on people, such as stress and anxiety, as wealth can be stressful and make people worry about being snatched away. Conclusion: Therefore, it is certain that wealth is not a source of happiness.

Summary. 1.The object of logic is the formal structure of thinking and its laws, and logic is the science of studying the formal structure of thinking and its laws. 2.The formal structure of thought is the way in which the content of thought exists.

1.The object of logic is the formal structure of thinking and its laws, and logic is the science of studying the formal structure of thinking and its laws. 2.The formal structure of thought is the way in which the content of thought exists.

Detailed answers. Thank you.

Hello dear The first one is a, the first one is b, and the first one is c, because their similarity is to say one thing repeatedly.

1(p (q r)) p q) (p r)) is tautology.

2.(1) A or B.

2) A non-front.

3) Positive is not extinguished.

4) Non-frontal.

5) Extinguish. 6) Non-positive (3,5) -

7) ex (4,6) -

8) Non-A (2,7) -

9) B (1,8)or-

Answer: B is a thief.

2.Li Wang Fei Li Fei Wang Li Fei Wang Li Fei Wang Fei Li Fei Wang Li Fei Li

Answer: It can be seen from the truth table above that when Li Quwang does not go, he meets the three sensible requirements of A, B and C.

It means that she is downstairs and helps you put the key in the mailbox when you go upstairs.

It's misleading for you, and for him, it may be a smooth sentence, he didn't deliberately put it, and the meaning you understand is different from the meaning he understands. The phrase "I didn't even go downstairs" has a certain misleading effect on others, including you, except for himself. He probably didn't feel it himself.

I'm also curious if he ** said it wrong?? He's right, he's downstairs, and when he goes upstairs, just put the key in the letter box, there's no need to go downstairs again! Your mind stays on the situation that he is upstairs, and when it is convenient, you can go downstairs and put the key in the mailbox, but they are not upstairs, so it is not wrong to say so!

He was downstairs at the time, so it's normal for him to say "I didn't even go downstairs", he really didn't go downstairs because you asked him to help, he was just downstairs because his own business was already downstairs.

The idea that you think "he actually went downstairs" is not wrong, and he is indeed downstairs, from upstairs, and it is an established fact that he went downstairs. But he went downstairs and had nothing to do with the help you offered.

Well, to put it mildly, what he said "I didn't even go downstairs" is not logically problematic, at the moment when you call him **, you assume that he is upstairs now and that he will go downstairs, so you will think that it is ambiguous for him to say "I didn't even go downstairs", but if he was downstairs at the time, then he just needs to go upstairs.

I didn't even go downstairs - I didn't mean to go downstairs because of you, he was downstairs, he went downstairs because of something else, like he had dinner and then walked outside.

You think a little rigidly, without context.

There's nothing wrong with what he says, but it's better to say: I don't even have to go downstairs.

It's misleading for him to say that, but what are you struggling with? As long as the key is put away for you, others have helped you, so don't worry about the other party's grammar and usage.

Why is it so serious? Isn't it okay to get the key?

What does that mean? Don't understand what to say?