Ah, but the information needed to answer the question is stated in the question. Rephrase it thus and avoid the distracting sports stuff:
If A, then B. Given that this is true, what else also must be true?
If B, then A. If not-A, then C. If not-B, then not-A. All of the above.
As I mentioned in another comment, I'd forgotten one of the rules of baseball when I took the test, and would have been comfortable answering that question if it had been about a sport I didn't know.
I did try phrasing it that way, but then I got confused and stopped, realizing I couldn't be sure that there wasn't a hidden conditional in the original phrase ("If A, then B since given D") because I couldn't know the terms translated to stark A and stark B.
Ah, good point about not being sure whether there was an unstated element you were expected to know from real life. Amusingly, if you'd gotten to #8 you would've found one where bringing real-world knowledge into it leads to a wrong answer.
Thinking about it more, it might have made more sense (given that the Web is global) to use a completely (and obviously) made-up game instead of baseball there, so as to avoid that "what don't I know about this that they're assuming I should?" reaction. If it were clear that nobody was expected to have outside knowledge of the sport...
So okay, yeah, cultural bias. I guess I should see whether there's a feedback address for whoever wrote the test.
It was phrased as a conditional, If she gets the home run then the team wins so if the team didn't win then logically she didn't get the home run. That makes the same sense as the question of the chick that didn't go to the movie unless she could drive. The two answers that were logically correct were that a)if she went to the movies she drove, and b) if she didn't drive she didn't go to the movies. That has the same if not-B, then not-A as the baseball question.
"If not-B, then not-A" is correct. Where it differs from the driving/movies question is the first answer, "If B, then A," which is not correct. (One question has an "only if", the other merely "if". So it's possible that the next batter hit a home run, for example, or that she hit a double and the next batter hit a triple, or the other team was caught cheating and had to forfeit, or something.)
Of course, the real fun is applying this analysis to political speeches. If one's blood pressure can stand it.
(no subject)
As I mentioned in another comment, I'd forgotten one of the rules of baseball when I took the test, and would have been comfortable answering that question if it had been about a sport I didn't know.
(no subject)
Maybe I was thinking too hard.
(no subject)
Thinking about it more, it might have made more sense (given that the Web is global) to use a completely (and obviously) made-up game instead of baseball there, so as to avoid that "what don't I know about this that they're assuming I should?" reaction. If it were clear that nobody was expected to have outside knowledge of the sport...
So okay, yeah, cultural bias. I guess I should see whether there's a feedback address for whoever wrote the test.
(no subject)
If not-B, then not-A.,
that still sounds to me to be correct.
It was phrased as a conditional, If she gets the home run then the team wins so if the team didn't win then logically she didn't get the home run. That makes the same sense as the question of the chick that didn't go to the movie unless she could drive. The two answers that were logically correct were that a)if she went to the movies she drove, and b) if she didn't drive she didn't go to the movies. That has the same if not-B, then not-A as the baseball question.
(no subject)
Of course, the real fun is applying this analysis to political speeches. If one's blood pressure can stand it.
(no subject)