Do you mind checking my last 2? 1. C & 2. B @jim_thompson5910
both are correct, again nice work
Thanks. I have one question I haven't been able to understand, Idk if you're going to understand it- but I'm sure you'll get it. It's this one:
not sure, it seems like there's a mess of information and at the same time, I'm not sure if there's info that's missing or not
is that first statement basically saying that all zoots are bubbles and all bubbles are zoots?
or just the first one?
No information missing, it's an analogy and you have to solve it.. I've had it before - but the question had different options.. :/
All zoots are bubbles, yes!
well if statement 2, which says "Zoots are red or blue", means that you could only pick one or the other but not both, so if you are red, then you aren't blue
and if you are red and have glitter, then you must be a zit based on statement 4
this is assuming we have this exclusive or property
^That's what I got so far...
I think we can eliminate C
If all zoots are bubbles, then "If a zoot is blue, then it's a zit" is the same as "If a bubble is blue, then it's a zit"
"A blue bubble with glitter is a zit, but not a zat" contradicts statement 4
Yay, progress :)
oops meant statement 3, but still, C is out
Yes, I agree. :D
so were you able to get any further?
I'm trying, just the statements are confusing.
yeah agreed
it might help to replace "zoot" with "bubble" (since all zoots are bubbles)
so statement 3 for instance would be changed to "if a bubble is blue, then it is a zat"
ALL zoots are bubbles. Bubbles are red or blue. If a bubble is blue, then it is a zat. If bubbles have glitter, it is a zit.
so let's assume when they say "Bubbles are red or blue." they mean one or the other, but not both
Correct.
so if a bubble was red, then it can't be blue if it was red and had glitter, then it has to be a zit it's not a zat because it's red (and not blue)
Red bubbles aren't in a category, they are known as zoots and IF they have glitter they are zits. (I'm leaning towards statement D. Still checking other options.) Blue bubbles ARE in a category= zats , they become zits if they have glitter. ----- **Zits aren't about color, just about glitter.
yeah I'm leaning towards D as well based on what I posted last
though A could be right based on what you posted
this one is definitely tricky
not sure what to make of those statements
Option B is eliminated because zits are *bubbles* with glitter, a blue bubble is a zat, this option is implying that b/c it is a bubble with glitter that it it can't be a bubble! -Evidence: Blue zats are stills zoots without glitter!
yeah statement 3 confirms that zats are zoots
so that knocks out B
On my explanation , I meant "b/c it is a bubble **without** glitter" , sorry.. It's still knocks out B though.
so it's between A and D
**How can you be a zit without glitter? -Is that possible/valid? -I believe that contradicts the definition of a zit; the "without glitter" part throws me off!! ***~Are they saying the definition of a zat is "a blue zit without glitter?" ----------- If so, that's wrong; that is NOT the definition of a zat. A zat is a blue bubble without glitter, period- nothing more, nothing less! Option A is kind of fishy... >.<
yeah I wonder if it's a case where you're either a zit or a zat, but not sure
A zat is a blue bubble without glitter ; BUT a zit is a bubble of ANY color that has glitter. So wouldn't that mean that statement A is incorrect? It would be if it said "zats have glitter" -------- I think it's wrong, how can a zit be a legit zit without glitter? ------------
Why do people even make problems like this ! ? >.<
A zat is a blue bubble without glitter ; BUT a zit is a bubble of ANY color that has glitter. can i quote you?
Yes :)
thnx
Weird. ---------------- -I really believe it's option D. @jim_thompson5910
yeah I think so too, but I'm not 100% sure
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!