Hacking the Watson Glazer

Can someone explain why it does in fact follow the premise?

Premise: All Real Estate assets are either very large or located in central areas but not both. While no apartment is untrendy, all trendy RE assets are very large.

Statement: Trendy real estate assets are either located in non-central areas or are small.

–The premise states that all trendy RE assets are very large, therefore the second part of this statement cannot be correct as trendy assets cannot be small. Although this conclusion is correct for the first part of the premise, it does not qualify after applying the second part of the premise.

Reply 1

DenninDisguise

Original post by solicitor24

Can someone explain why it does in fact follow the premise?
Premise: All Real Estate assets are either very large or located in central areas but not both. While no apartment is untrendy, all trendy RE assets are very large.
Statement: Trendy real estate assets are either located in non-central areas or are small.
–The premise states that all trendy RE assets are very large, therefore the second part of this statement cannot be correct as trendy assets cannot be small. Although this conclusion is correct for the first part of the premise, it does not qualify after applying the second part of the premise.

I think it follows because all trendy REAs are very large and therefore are not in central areas. Therefore they are located in non-central areas.

The statement says either x or y. The statement fits with the premise using x, and it can negate y therefore it follows.

I think could be wrong.

Reply 2

solicitor24

Original post by DenninDisguise

I think it follows because all trendy REAs are very large and therefore are not in central areas. Therefore they are located in non-central areas.
The statement says either x or y. The statement fits with the premise using x, and it can negate y therefore it follows.
I think could be wrong.

Thanks for your response.
I see what you are saying. However, the term "either or" indicates it can be both albeit not simultaneously. But here it is impossible for the apartment to be small because of the premise. If you can prove that the watson glaser test treats the term "either or" as having to be one of a few, then I think you could be correct.
Any other thoughts?

Reply 3

DenninDisguise

Original post by solicitor24

Yeah its a tricky one because it's a bit misleading, but I would say that "either or" would mean as a choice between the two. Just because "or y" is strictly not true, as long as "x" is true the statement follows.

If for instance you had two correct statements in the x and y values the conclusion would be false e.g.: "Trendy real estate assets are either located in non-central areas or are very large". We know that REAs are both non-central and very large, and in this case the conclusion would not follow. So you need in an "either or" both a true and false statement.

Hope this helps, this is the best I can explain it.