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)
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)