Wurks, Nurks, and Blurks?

Logic Level 3

All Blurks are Durks.
All Murks are Wurks.
All Durks are Blurks.
All Blurks are Vurks.
All Wurks are Nurks.
All Nurks are Murks.
All Wurks are Vurks.
What can we conclude?

All Vurks are either Wurks or Blurks. If it isn't a Vurk, then it isn't a Nurk. If it isn't a Durk then it isn't a Nurk. If its a Blurk it isn't a Murk. If it isn't a Nurk, then it isn't a Vurk. No Nurk is a Durk. None of these choices All Vurks are Murks.

1 solution

Geoff Pilling
May 26, 2016

Well we have two groups that are the same:

Wurks, Nurks and Murks
Blurks and Durks.

So, since all Wurks are Vurks, and Wurks are the same as Nurks, then $\boxed{\mbox{If it isn't a Vurk, then it isn't a Nurk}}$ .

Lets indicate blurk as B. Durk as D and so on. Now the statement are :- B = D , M = W , D = B , B = V , W = N , N = M , W = V.
So, B = D and B = V so, B = D = V.
Now, B = D = V and V = W. So, B = D = V = W.
Now, B = D = V = W and W = N. So, B = D = V = W = N.
Now, B = D = V = W = N and N = M. So, B = D = V = W = N = M. So, this is cyclic right? So, multiple answers are correct. Please help me where am I going wrong?

Ashish Menon - 5 years ago

You might just be confused because you put an equivalence sign to denote the expression of "all things that are X are Y" which is not correct. The expression "all burks are vurks" (E1) for example can't be denoted as B=V because B=V would mean two things namely that "all burks are vurks" (E1) but also that "all vurks are burks" (E2) therefore both E1 and E2 while E1 would imply just E1 and not necessarily E2 since from the fact that "all burks are vurks" what you can conclude is just that any burk belongs to the class of vurks being possible for the class of vurks to contain more than just burks and therefore not meaning that because all blurks are vurks all vurks are blurks.

A A - 5 years ago

Wurks, Nurks, and Blurks?

1 solution

0 pending reports