0
Winsonli Posted 19 years ago
Linguistics Studies
Your interpretation on this statement.
Hello, this would be my first post.
I am studying in Hong Kong. In our Elements of Logic and Critical Thinking class, we are having different interpretations on an English statement. I would be grateful if you would share your ideas.
We were given the following statement:
1. People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
We were asked to convert this statement into a categorical proposition, which is a standard form of a proposition in logic. The lecturer's answer was:
2. Some people being admitted to Hong Kong University are non-local students.
The reason we think his answer was wrong is that, the second statement means that there is at least one non-local student. However, the first statement only said that the admitted students are not restricted to local ones, there do not have to be at least one non-local one.
Let me illustrate this with an example. Say HKU admitted 10 students this year, all 10 of them are local students. The fact that the admitted students "are not restricted to local students" still holds true. However, the second statement implies that there is at least one student who is not local, and thus the contradiction as all admitted students are local.
Our lecturer thinks otherwise, he believes that the first statement should be interpreted as "there is at least one non local student".
We are not trying to challenge the lecturer. After a discussion with him, we were not able to come up with a conclusion. As English is not our first language in Hong Kong, we cannot be certain on our views. He advised us to consult English teachers. It would be the best if you would advise whether:
a) Understanding the first statement as "the admitted students are not restricted to non-local students, and there do not necessarily have to be at least one non-local student, as all of them could be local ones" be correct.
and b) Understanding the first statement as "there must be at least one admitted student who is a non-local" be wrong.
Your help is much appreciated. Thank you
I am studying in Hong Kong. In our Elements of Logic and Critical Thinking class, we are having different interpretations on an English statement. I would be grateful if you would share your ideas.
We were given the following statement:
1. People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
We were asked to convert this statement into a categorical proposition, which is a standard form of a proposition in logic. The lecturer's answer was:
2. Some people being admitted to Hong Kong University are non-local students.
The reason we think his answer was wrong is that, the second statement means that there is at least one non-local student. However, the first statement only said that the admitted students are not restricted to local ones, there do not have to be at least one non-local one.
Let me illustrate this with an example. Say HKU admitted 10 students this year, all 10 of them are local students. The fact that the admitted students "are not restricted to local students" still holds true. However, the second statement implies that there is at least one student who is not local, and thus the contradiction as all admitted students are local.
Our lecturer thinks otherwise, he believes that the first statement should be interpreted as "there is at least one non local student".
We are not trying to challenge the lecturer. After a discussion with him, we were not able to come up with a conclusion. As English is not our first language in Hong Kong, we cannot be certain on our views. He advised us to consult English teachers. It would be the best if you would advise whether:
a) Understanding the first statement as "the admitted students are not restricted to non-local students, and there do not necessarily have to be at least one non-local student, as all of them could be local ones" be correct.
and b) Understanding the first statement as "there must be at least one admitted student who is a non-local" be wrong.
Your help is much appreciated. Thank you
Top answer
Hi, Welcome to the Forum. 1. People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
- Hi, Welcome to the Forum.
- 1.
- People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
- We were asked to convert this statement into a categorical proposition, which is a standard form of a proposition in logic.
- The lecturer's answer was: 2.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
46 Answers
0
Hi,
Welcome to the Forum.
1. People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
We were asked to convert this statement into a categorical proposition, which is a standard form of a proposition in logic. The lecturer's answer was:
2. Some people being admitted to Hong Kong University are non-local students.
Welcome to the Forum.
1. People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
We were asked to convert this statement into a categorical proposition, which is a standard form of a proposition in logic. The lecturer's answer was:
2. Some people being admitted to Hong Kong University are non-local students.
00
I think the lecturer is right; "are restricted to" means "include only" and so "are not restricted to" must mean "do not include only".
People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
Is therefore the same as:
People being admitted to Hong Kong University do not include only
People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students.
Is therefore the same as:
People being admitted to Hong Kong University do not include only
00
I think you are right Forbes, but as Clive said, the sentence is poor English. It very much reminds one of the example that Clive gave, and you would guess that the writer meant to say that, and it would mean something very slighty different. Since the writer has not obeyed the normal conventions of standard English, and we are left to guess at his meaning somewhat, it renders the discussion a bi
00
Thank you for the replies. It is nice to have some different views, so we can have some discussion.
I agree that this sentence is written in poor English.
However, I disagree with Forbes. I believe "are restricted to" should not be understood as "include only". I've looked up the dictionary and "restricted" is explained as "limited".
People being admitted to Hong K
I agree that this sentence is written in poor English.
However, I disagree with Forbes. I believe "are restricted to" should not be understood as "include only". I've looked up the dictionary and "restricted" is explained as "limited".
People being admitted to Hong K
00
I think we need to forget about whether or not the sentence is good English. Winsonli was attending a lesson in Logic and Critical Thinking - that includes trying to work out what poorly phrased sentences mean.
"Restrict" means to impose limits. The choice at lunch was restricted to spaghetti and salad means that only spaghetti and salad were available. Suppose that the choice was
"Restrict" means to impose limits. The choice at lunch was restricted to spaghetti and salad means that only spaghetti and salad were available. Suppose that the choice was
00
I see your point, Forbes.
Forbes
Those permitted to fly our aeroplanes are restricted to those with a pilot's license
We know it is no use asking to fly if we do not have a license.
Those permitted to fly our aeroplanes are not restricted to those with a pilot's license
We know we can have a go if we do not have a license.
00
WinsonliI see your point, Forbes.Forbes
Those permitted to fly our aeroplanes are restricted to those with a pilot's license
We know it is no use asking to fly if we do not have a license.
Those permitted to fly our aeroplanes are not restricted to those with a pilot's license
We know we can have a go i
00
0
Thanks for the reply, Forbes.
ForbesYou are going beyond the premise and confusing those permitted to fly with those who actually flie. You are only interested in those who actually fly if the premise is:
Those who fly our aeroplanes are not restricted to those with a pilot's license.
In that case we can see that there must be at least one perso
00
Now you are bringing rules into it! There is no mention of rules. People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to local students is simply a statement about who is admitted.
If the statement All students admitted to Hong Kong University are local students is true then the statement People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to loc
If the statement All students admitted to Hong Kong University are local students is true then the statement People being admitted to Hong Kong University are not restricted to loc
0
Related Questions