P: Tom buys Park Place.
Q: Sally buys hotels for her properties.
S: Sally goes bankrupt.
Y: Sally wins.
I have the following statement:
For Sally to win it is sufficient that she buy hotels for her properties
Now I know that a statement in the form A is sufficient for B means simply A -> B. However, when i translate it into this statement, it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Here is what I think is supposed to be correct according to the definition.
Y -> Q
But this doesn't make sense to me... if it's sufficient that she buys hotels for her properties to win, doesn't that mean that if she buys hotels for her properties, then she wins? so shouldn't it take on the form:
Q -> Y ?
also since it's just sufficient that she buys hotels, doesn't it mean that just because she won, doesn't mean that she bought hotels for her properties, she could have won using some other method right?