<p>The problem was something like:
if y=4 when x > 3 which has to be true?</p>
<p>wouldn't it just be:
x>3 y=4
???</p>
<p>It was actually, "If x = 4, then y > 3." But that doesn't really matter :). That is what I put.</p>
<p>you put the opposite thing right? people said its too obvious but that's why it might be tricky?</p>
<p>setz, yours works too. Think about it. If x = 4, then it is fulfilling x>3. that being said, then y=4, which is greater than 3. the reverse is true.</p>
<p>cool
that means only 2 wrong 2 omit so far w00t :)</p>
<p>Was it on the IIC? If so, all you had to do was apply this:</p>
<p>if A, then B</p>
<p>then if -B, then -A</p>
<p>No it was on the SAT 1 Reasoning Test</p>
<p>Fool, that's not always true. Think of this:</p>
<p>If I am 6 ft tall, then I weigh 160 lbs. This in no way implies that if I am not 160 lbs then i am not 6 ft tall. Unless you are talking functions, then yea, you're right.</p>
<p>NJpitcher, you are incorrect. If you were 6 ft tall, then you would weigh 160 lbs. If you are 6 ft tall, you MUST weigh 160 lbs according to your statement. The contrapositive is always logically equivalent to the original statement. Look at it this way:
If you live in alabama, then you live in USA.
If you do not live in USA, then you do not live in Alabama.</p>
<p>Ashernm is correct. If x = 4, then y >3 is similar to saying "if my name is fred, then I am tall." However, saying "if i am tall, my name is fred" is not true. The x=4 then y>3 does not work both ways. However, if i were to say "i am not tall, so my name is not fred" works, because the original expression stated that fred is tall no matter what.</p>
<p>Haha...yea. I kind've realized that at the end (my disclaimer about functions), and now I realize that that's true whether it's a function or not. Hehe, my B.</p>
<p>If y<3, then x does not equal 4.</p>
<p>I think thats what I put</p>
<p>lol I rmbr this problem vividly....and I know for a fact that i got it right because I spent a half hour explaining why it wasn't the obvious answer (oppostie one). The question was: If x = 4, then y > 3.</p>
<p>Choices that you SHOULD have narrowed down to.
-the opposite one
if y < 3 then x CANNOT = 4.</p>
<p>the second one was the answer...and if I'm not mistaken I think it was choice D.
Don't argue with me. I'm right lol.</p>
<p>This might not be what the question was asking, or one of the answer choices, but:
if y=4 when x > 3 which has to be true?</p>
<p>If y=4, then y-1=3.
If y-1=3 and x>3, then x>y-1</p>
<p>lol thanks for going deep into the problem...but that's the exact kind of thinking that trips you over on simple questions like this. THink back to simple if then statements in 8th grade / 9th grade geometry. lol. it's not that hard just OLD.</p>
<p>It's not really going deep into the problem; it's just really a handy concept that occurs frequently in many problems, and if you are pretty familiar with it, then you can solve that problem in maybe 5 to 10 seconds.</p>
<p>I don't see why they'd want to put something so open-ended on the SAT I. What if the function was a parabola?</p>
<p>it doesn't matter. If that one statement is true, the corrolary is true. Here's an easy proof (well, for this problem).</p>
<p>If x>3, y=4. That is true. Now if x=4, then it fulfills the first requirement because 4>3. Because x>3 (4>3), then y=4. Since 4>3, y>3. Therefore, x=4:y>3.</p>
<p>If the problem was "if x=4, then y>3, which of the following must be true?"</p>
<p>I think I put "if y<3, then x does not equal 4", and i can't see why it wouldn't be this. </p>
<p>was this the right answer?</p>
<p>Yes, you were right eeepiyk</p>