What does always indicate?

[alexcyt1995]

Hi, I have a question about what "always" indicate in a conditional reasoning. Is it necessary or sufficient?

For example, "the public always adore those who win and never brag". I thought always indicate sufficiency. In a formal logic manner the reasoning would be: Public Adores----->Win&~Brag. But I'm quite not sure about that. Could someone please explain it? Thanks!!!

[dyerderekhello]

The phrase you used as an example isn't a conditional statement. A conditional statement has two components, wherein knowing that one is true allows you to conclude that the other must be true.

The way you modeled the statement, it would roughly translate to "If the public adores anyone, then it adores those who win and never brag". But that's not quite the same as saying "The public always adores those who win and never brag", because the latter statement isn't predicated on an "if" statement. In this case, "always" means that there is no if; it is always true that the public adores those who win and never brag.

[alexcyt1995]

thanks a lot!
I thought "always" is always an indicator for guarantee. So when the stimulus states the public always adores those whose win and don't brag, could it also be true that the public adores those who didn't win? given the fact that it's not a conditional reasoning.

[tommywallach]

Good convo. Agreed all around!

[fimtiaz7]

Good convo. Agreed all around!

Actually, ny statement that gives a guarantee is a conditional or can be translated into conditional. In this case, "the public always adore those who win and never brag"…..
If one win+ Brag then public adores : contrapositive: public will not adore if not brag or not win.

always, all, every are treated the same way.. e.g. All dogs are mammals..i.e. if its a dog then it is a mammal and contrapositive: if it is not a mammal then it is not a dog.

[tommywallach]

That is very true. Personally, I almost never use conditional reasoning unless the question is a pure linking conditionals question, so I guess I was just saying that you can interpret the sentence as simply saying what it means. But you are absolutely right that technically the word always creates a conditional X --> Y. But some of them are deeply stupid:

I am always hungry.

If Me --> Then hungry

So the word isn't necessarily a signal of a conditional logic question.

-t

[motbannuxinhgai]

The phrase you used as an example isn't a conditional statement. A conditional statement has two components, wherein knowing that one is true allows you to conclude that the other must be true.

The way you modeled the statement, it would roughly translate to "If the public adores anyone, then it adores those who win and never brag". But that's not quite the same as saying "The public always adores those who win and never brag", because the latter statement isn't predicated on an "if" statement. In this case, "always" means that there is no if; it is always true that the public adores those who win and never brag.

awesome dyerderek!
Thank for sharing

[yentrangkorea89]

The phrase you used as an example isn't a conditional statement. A conditional statement has two components, wherein knowing that one is true allows you to conclude that the other must be true.

The way you modeled the statement, it would roughly translate to "If the public adores anyone, then it adores those who win and never brag". But that's not quite the same as saying "The public always adores those who win and never brag", because the latter statement isn't predicated on an "if" statement. In this case, "always" means that there is no if; it is always true that the public adores those who win and never brag.

awesome dyerderek!
Thank for sharing