How would you translate this?

Comments

• MsM1998_ Alum Member

  September 2016 edited September 2016 117 karma

  Not too sure about the conditional indicators but what I took from that sentence is that "if Juarez has evaluated an introductory textbook, then Rosenberg can evaluate the introductory textbook". I came up with this because the only way for Rosenberg to evaluate a book is if Juarez has evaluated it. Not too sure how else I can explain my reasoning, but yeah. I didn't pay so much attention to the indicator as much as making sense of the sentence.
  
  Also to be clear, I haven't yet finished the CC myself, so someone else may be able to provide a better response.
• JSL17824 Alum Member

  September 2016 edited September 2016 141 karma

  @karina.shaw said:
  Rosenberg cannot evaluate any introductory textbook until Juarez has evaluated that textbook? I would have guessed it would have been "until" so group three, so you negate sufficient so it would be R (intro book)--> J (intro book) but it is actually J intro book -> R intro book. Could someone please explain this?
  

  If you mean the conditional relationship, i think you are right:
  "Rosenberg cannot evaluate any introductory textbook(REIT)" until "Juarez has evaluated that textbook(JEIT)" = REIT until JEIT = REIT -> JEIT
  
  Otherwise,
  JEIT -> REIT = If Juarez has evaluated intro book, then Rosenberg evaluate that intro textbook. = Only if Rosenberg has evaluated the intro textbook, Juarez can evaluate that textbook.= Juarez cannot evaluate any introductory textbook until Rosenberg has evaluated that textbook.
  =\= original statement.
  
  Actually it reverses the conditional statement.
  
  But, if it's a logic game in sequence, you know that (REIT -> JEIT) means only if JEIT, REIT, so it would be: JEIT － REIT