Solve a logic problem, a logic problem to solve

According to the third article and assumptions, it is concluded that there is only one company to recruit secretaries, and only one company to recruit physics.

According to Article 2, it is impossible for Jardine Matheson to recruit these two majors. Because if Jardine Matheson recruits, Fengyun also recruits, it will become two companies.

Therefore, the remaining two: Fengyun and Hongyu recruited secretarial and physical respectively.

According to Article 5, because Jardine did not recruit a secretary, it must have been a secretary for Hongyu, and Jardine did not recruit a secretary.

So it's physics. Pick D

1. There is only one company that recruits physics, and according to Article 3, then this company is not the one that recruits secretaries.

2. According to Article 4, there are two possibilities:

First, assuming that Jardine Matheson recruits management majors, then Jardine Matheson also recruits secretarial majors, and according to Article 2, Fengyun Company should also recruit management and secretarial majors, which contradicts Article 3. This assumption is wrong.

Second, Jardine Matheson does not recruit management majors, and Jardine Matheson does not recruit secretarial majors. According to Article 5, if Hongyu Company does not recruit secretaries, then Jardine Company needs to recruit secretarial majors, and Jardine Company does not recruit secretarial majors, then it can be determined that Hongyu Company recruits secretarial majors.

3. Hongyu Company recruits secretarial majors, and according to Article 3, Hongyu Company does not recruit physics majors, and other companies do not recruit secretarial majors.

4. According to statistics, the majors that Jardine Matheson may recruit are: mathematics, physics, chemistry, and law. According to Article 2, Jardine Matheson also recruits, and according to the topic, there may be only one company recruiting physics, so Jardine Matheson will not recruit physics.

According to the topic, it can be seen that each company recruits 2-3 majors and the first one, mathematics and chemistry are recruited at the same time, so Jardine Matheson Company will definitely recruit mathematics and chemistry, and Fengyun Company will definitely recruit mathematics and chemistry. Now Jardine and Hongyu do not recruit physics, then only Fengyun Company recruits physics.

The answer should be ad

The meaning of choosing the above question C is that the recommended students who are exempt from the examination must be in the top three in academic performance and recommended by two professors, which is understood in this way.

That is, only the top three can be recommended by the exempt candidates, and the two professors can recommend these two conditions, the front is the sufficient condition of the back, and the back is the necessary condition of the front.

This is not necessarily, it just means that these two conditions are required for exempt recommended candidates, but these two conditions are not necessarily recommended. So A has been implemented, and from the above analysis, it can be seen that the regulations are clearly violated.

i.Yu Yong's academic performance ranked first, and he was recommended by two professors, but he was not able to become a recommended student for exemption.

Yu Yong can become an exempt student, but the regulations say that "only those who rank in the top three in academic performance and are recommended by two professors can become exempt from the examination", which is the premise, but it does not necessarily mean that he will become an "exempt student".

That is, the condition of "becoming-must be" is prescribed, but the condition of "not becoming-not" is not specified.

Even if he is eligible, he may not be exempted from the exam and will be required to take the exam.

Moreover, he did not pass the exemption exam, perhaps because he was a former student, and it is not known.

In short, this one is not in violation.

ii.Fang Ning became a recommended student for exemption from the examination, but only one professor recommended him.

The rule says "recommended by two professors", even if you are "in the top three".

Therefore, this one violates the rule of "two professors recommend".

iii.Wang Yi became a recommended student for exemption from the examination, but his academic performance was not in the top three.

The rules say "top three in academic performance", even if you have "two professors recommended".

Therefore, this one violates the rule of "top three in academic performance".

In summary, II and III did not follow the rules. Choose C

Quite simply, the end of the story is that I ate the homeless man. From the last few sentences, "From the next day, the homeless man disappeared from the subway."

Is he God? Or an immortal?

Anyway, I finally know what that ability is, because I've got it, and I've taken the place of the bum.

It can be seen here, because from my very determined eyes, I know that I want to know what his abilities are and how to obtain them, but I want to know more about the identity of the tramp, so I eat him so that I can see what I ate last time, but there is no result, so I guess whether he is a god or an immortal. It was said earlier, "An ordinary office worker eats people, but a guy who is an ordinary person no matter how you look at it."

An ordinary office worker eats people, but still looks so ordinary and flawless, so I eat him without any scruples.

Anyone whose body is infected with virus X, a week later produces antibodies against this virus, and he is tested with an antibody test method within this week, and no antibodies to this virus can be found, so no signs of infection can be found...

The premise is: everyone tells half the truth and half lies, so it is very simple to do it with the hypothetical method: Hypothesis:

The first half of Xiaoli's sentence "Xiaoling bought not gloves" (assuming A) is true, then "Xiaojuan bought not a hairpin" is a lie, so: Xiaojuan bought a hairpin (Assuming A continues); So: the second half of what Xiaoling said - "Xiaojuan didn't buy a skirt" is also true; So:

The first half of Xiaoling's sentence - "Xiaoli bought not a hairpin" is a lie, so Xiaoli bought a hairpin (assuming A continues); This is where the contradiction arises: the title tells us that all three people buy different things, so it is impossible for both people to buy hairpins. The problem lies with Assumption A at the outset.

So we can get the correct answer by going through it again: The first half of Xiaoli's sentence "Xiaoling didn't buy gloves" - is a lie, so, Xiaoling bought gloves (answer) So:

The second half of Xiaoli's sentence "Xiaojuan bought not a hairpin" - is the truth; Next, in the face of Xiaoling's words, let's assume B again: "Xiaoli didn't buy hairpins" (1) is true, then Xiaojuan didn't buy a skirt - false, so Xiaojuan bought a skirt (hypothetical) Next, let's look at what Xiaojuan said, the second half of the sentence I suspect you are wrong, what Xiaojuan said should be "Xiaoli didn't buy a hat, Xiaoling bought a skirt", right? Earlier we have determined that Xiaoling bought is:

Gloves (Answer) So: Xiaoli didn't buy a hat (2) - the truth; Xiaoling bought a skirt - false, At this point, we know that Xiaoli did not buy hairpins (1), not hats (2), and cannot be repeated with Xiaojuan's skirt and Xiaoling's gloves So the contradiction appears again, and the assumption B is also wrong; So: "Xiaoli bought not a hairpin" is a lie, So, Xiaoli bought it:

hairpin (answer), and "Xiaojuan didn't buy a skirt" is true; Xiaojuan didn't buy a skirt, and it couldn't be duplicated with Xiaoling's gloves and Xiaoli's hairpins, so, Xiaojuan bought: hat (answer) Finally, check it with Xiaojuan's words: Xiaoli didn't buy a hat - the truth; Xiaoling bought a skirt - false, no contradiction.

You can reason by yourself from the second step where I suspect you made a mistake, even if you don't make a mistake Xiaojuan, the conclusion you get will not change.