(Original post by NYU2012)
Any assertion that X is reliant on Y is inherently about logic.
As far as my being terrible at it -- my 4.0 out of 4.0 in logic dictates otherwise; and of course, my equivalent of a 1st in my philosophy major also dictates that I'm no 'terrible at it', in fact, it shows quite the opposite, especially considering where I study philosophy.
No, in fact it did not make sense, as I clearly indicated. You haven't proven me wrong, rather, I've proven you wrong.
In case you cannot understand why:
I can imagine a case where 3,000 people compete in activity X and they are only mildly competitive. I can imagine another case where 2 people compete in activity Y and they are much more competitive.
This means that your statement is not well-formed, because I can imagine a case where your statement is not true -- meaning you're wrong.
Your statement would have been more accurate if you used an existential quantifier -- for example, "It is that case that in at least some cases the number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X".
However, that is not what you claimed -- your claim was universal such that, fo all activities X, number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X. Which is false.
Finally, if you want to get out of the realm of formal logic (since you cannot grasp formal logic, which is clearly indicated by the fact that you think you've proven me wrong), there is absolutely no grounds under which you can claim that the number of people who compete in activity X directly relates to the competitiveness of the activity X. There is no support for such a claim. In fact, competitiveness is a personal trait (hi, welcome to basic psychology. Guess what, I study psychology too) and is in no way reliant on how many people compete in some such activity X.
You can continue being wrong now.