Another logical reasoning question

[Qwertyuiop[]]

Hi, i have another question, this one a little different from what i have posted before.
My attempt : For the bylaw to be not obeyed, it requires a least 1 inhabitant to own more than 2 dogs. Sounds simple but more than 1 options looks correct to me because they all break the rule imo .
I will list the options I rejected :
a) there is an inhabitant of Tregatti who has three dogs . The law is not obeyed here because an inhabitant has more than 2 dogs. But I rejected this one because the question says "It is certain that". We can not say for sure , what if he had more than 3 like 4 ,5,6 and so on...

c) all the inhabitant of Tregatti have more than 2 dogs. This one is very unlikely. It does not have to be all the inhabitants owning more than 2 dogs for the law to be disobeyed. I rejected this one too. Also the question states "A thorough investigation by the Police" so it must be very few people and not the whole community. Right?

So I have 3 options left. b) d) e)

my first answer was d) there is an inhabitant of Tregatti who has more than 3 dogs. This one is wrong but why that can't be correct because the person broke the law right ? He has more than 2 dogs and broke the bylaw.

e) is wrong but i am not sure why.

The correct answer is b) there is an inhabitant of Tregatti who has at least 3 dogs.
Why other options couldn't not be correct? Because b) states the same thing, more than 2 dogs being owned by someone.

 

[Deleted member 4993]

Hi, i have another question, this one a little different from what i have posted before.
My attempt : For the bylaw to be not obeyed, it requires a least 1 inhabitant to own more than 2 dogs. Sounds simple but more than 1 options looks correct to me because they all break the rule imo .
I will list the options I rejected :
a) there is an inhabitant of Tregatti who has three dogs . The law is not obeyed here because an inhabitant has more than 2 dogs. But I rejected this one because the question says "It is certain that". We can not say for sure , what if he had more than 3 like 4 ,5,6 and so on...

c) all the inhabitant of Tregatti have more than 2 dogs. This one is very unlikely. It does not have to be all the inhabitants owning more than 2 dogs for the law to be disobeyed. I rejected this one too. Also the question states "A thorough investigation by the Police" so it must be very few people and not the whole community. Right?

So I have 3 options left. b) d) e)

my first answer was d) there is an inhabitant of Tregatti who has more than 3 dogs. This one is wrong but why that can't be correct because the person broke the law right ? He has more than 2 dogs and broke the bylaw.

e) is wrong but i am not sure why.

The correct answer is b) there is an inhabitant of Tregatti who has at least 3 dogs.
Why other options couldn't not be correct? Because b) states the same thing, more than 2 dogs being owned by someone.

The key word in the problem statement, in my opinion, is "certain"................

 

[pka]

Hi, i have another question, this one a little different from what i have posted before.
My attempt : For the bylaw to be not obeyed, it requires a least 1 inhabitant to own more than 2 dogs. Sounds simple but more than 1 options looks correct to me because they all break the rule imo .
I will list the options I rejected :
The correct answer is b) there is an inhabitant of Tregatti who has at least 3 dogs.
Why other options couldn't not be correct? Because b) states the same thing, more than 2 dogs being owned by someone.

View attachment 33180

Thank you Mr. Khan. Without your reposting a clear copy of the question, I would have no clue as to what any of the op meant.
Now clearly option b) is the only correct answer.
Having more than two is equivalent to having at least three. No more, no less.

 

[Steven G]

If you were the police person investigation whether the bylaw is being broken, then what would you have to see to conclude that the bylaw is being broken.
Answer: You'd have to see one (or more) inhabitant that owns more than two dogs.

 

[Deleted member 4993]

You'd have to see one (or more) inhabitant that owns more than two dogs.

Or in other words:

You'd have to see at least one inhabitant with at least three dogs.

 

[Cubist]

Sounds simple but more than 1 options looks correct to me because they all break the rule imo .

You're correct that if the police investigation had revealed that option a,b,c or d had happened then the bylaw would have been broken. However, that wasn't the question:-

In the town of Tregatti a bylaw states that: No inhabitant of Tregatti can own more than two dogs.
A thorough investigation by the local police has established that this rule has NOT been obeyed.
Therefore it is certain that:- <list of options>

In other words, given the blue text, then which option describes (for sure) what the police must have found.

If I told you that I've had lunch today, then you wouldn't be able to say that I had an apple for lunch. That is far too specific. How could you possibly know this since it wasn't in my statement? I might have had an apple, but I could have had an orange, banana, burger or whatever. All you could say would be something along the lines of, "I had lunch", "I ate something" or "I had food in my mouth around lunchtime" etc

Hope this helps

 

[Steven G]

You're correct that if the police investigation had revealed that option a,b,c or d had happened then the bylaw would have been broken. However, that wasn't the question:-

In the town of Tregatti a bylaw states that: No inhabitant of Tregatti can own more than two dogs.
A thorough investigation by the local police has established that this rule has NOT been obeyed.
Therefore it is certain that:- <list of options>

In other words, given the blue text, then which option describes (for sure) what the police must have found.

If I told you that I've had lunch today, then you wouldn't be able to say that I had an apple for lunch. That is far too specific. How could you possibly know this since it wasn't in my statement? I might have had an apple, but I could have had an orange, banana, burger or whatever. All you could say would be something along the lines of, "I had lunch", "I ate something" or "I had food in my mouth around lunchtime" etc

Hope this helps

Your post made me hungry.