Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Warren --
If A, then B does not mean If not A then not B.
IOW, If BEFORE then NOTHING does not imply If AFTER, then SOMETHING.
|
Generally true, Bob. No disagreement there. However, can you explain why it was necessary to include the parenthetical "(not interference)" if the corollary of THIS rule 'A' was not in fact 'Z'? Using this statement in parentheses surely indicates that "interference" was the alternative choice for the casebook exception, doesn't it?
The choice here is in being pregnant or not. Therefore "not A" really is "not B" in this case. Either this action is interference or not. The exception stated means that, absent the exception conditions, interference exists. That is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the comment.
Cheers,