Question Protected by Eliran
    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1114181043152674816
    Became Hot Network Question
2 grammar for clarification
source | link

ItsIt makes absolutely zero sense to me.

It would make sense if I"I am in americaAmerica" is the antecedent and the consequent is the former.

Even thoughtthough it wouldn't be sound, butit would make logical sense.

I hope someone could explain it in a way someone would to a beginner toin logic.

Thanks

Its makes absolutely zero sense to me.

It would make sense if I am in america is the antecedent and the consequent is the former.

Even thought it wouldn't be sound, but would make logical sense.

I hope someone could explain it in a way someone would to a beginner to logic.

Thanks

It makes absolutely zero sense to me.

It would make sense if "I am in America" is the antecedent and the consequent is the former.

Even though it wouldn't be sound, it would make logical sense.

I hope someone could explain it in a way someone would to a beginner in logic.

Thanks

1
source | link

How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?

Its makes absolutely zero sense to me.

It would make sense if I am in america is the antecedent and the consequent is the former.

Even thought it wouldn't be sound, but would make logical sense.

I hope someone could explain it in a way someone would to a beginner to logic.

Thanks