#17 - The government health service has said that it

[Adam Tyson]

Not always, SGD2021, because sometimes that's just a classic biconditional statement, an "if and only if" situation. For example, "I will only watch that movie if my wife watches it with me, and she will watch it only if I watch it with her." It could be true that we both watch the movie together, or it could be true that neither of us watches the movie. There's no inherent conflict, just a "both or neither" situation.

Where the problem arises is when you introduce a chronological requirement that one of the two things has to happen before the other one can happen, and that chronology goes both ways, which is part of what happened in this question. The government has to pay before we can have the clinical trials, but they will not pay until the clinical trials have already been done. Each thing has to come first, so neither will ever happen!

[cd1010]

Regarding C ("If the government health service does not pay for Antinfia, then many patients will pay for Antinfia themselves.") , is it fair to say that we can't say this because we don't know what the patients will do? Perhaps they just wont take the influenza medicine?

[Dana D]

Hey CD,

Exactly - we have no evidence to suggest what patients will do, so that cannot be the correct answer.