Tue 7 Nov, 2017 12:50 pm
Greetings! I am working on a question for my class that involves the following:
"If 'All Ferengi are entrepreneurs' is true, what may be inferred about 'Some entrepreneurs are not non-Ferengi'? Explain."
I suppose the main point here is to ask if the second statement is valid based upon the first. This seemed like one of those trick questions because it appears as a converse statement, but the wording is throwing me off. If something is "not non", wouldn't that technically mean that it really is? Because if something is not part of the class "non-Ferengi", then it must be part of the class "Ferengi". So my logic here is that the statement "Some entrepreneurs are not non-Ferengi" is valid by a conversion by limitation on the "A" statement, "All Ferengi are entrepreneurs".
I did do the textbook reading and I didn't see any explicit examples of this type of problem, where "All S are P" and "Some P are not non-S". So I have no idea if I am thinking correctly about this.