If I apply the 'committees' (not cheerleading) I know:
Quote: "
Sally loves money."
My friend is King Dave, he loves chocolate, chocolate costs money, this guy is a treasurer of a committee.
Quote: "Meghan thinks she could not handle a whole class"
We don't have a team leader, but we have a secretary, he can't handle big groups, so I'll say that.
Quote: "Jim was elected"
James was elected Vice President and his girlfriend president.
So by much logic, in comparing these guys to real people in the real world, I have my answer.
Though in truth and to be fair, a lot of people like money who could go for any position, people who can't handle the class might go for a position that requires them to do it, so that they gain confidence. Being elected in a democracy committee would require all members to be elected, so I'd assume anyone of these could be elected and relationships can form between any committee members.
So really, your guess is as good as mine...So the problem of logic is therefore people like to make assumptions and over generalise things, and they aren't always right.
Or am I buying waaaaaay too much reality into this? When it's clearly a problem for the mathematical minded and isn't meant to be taken literally?
Oh and Ron means 're-open nominations', so one of these positions didn't satisfy the voters - so people, bear that into account.
"Experience never provides its judgments with true or strict universality; but only (through induction) with assumed and comparative universality." - Immanuel Kant
