/*
A cautious gambler never takes any risks unless probabilities are
in his favour. A clever gambler never takes any risks unless
there is a big sum to win. Giovanni is a gambler that always
takes risks.
Consequently, which statement is certainly true?
We want to generate the correct option and plausible distractors.
*/
Types : gambler.
Predicates: risks(gambler) probab_in_favour(gambler)
much_to_win(gambler)
cautious(gambler) clever(gambler).
Objects: Giovanni: gambler.
Theory:
forall x:gambler (cautious(x) & risks(x) -> probab_in_favour(x)),
forall x:gambler (clever(x) & risks(x) -> much_to_win(x)),
risks(Giovanni).
Generate: Consequence.
Beliefs:
### double implication instead of implicaton
forall x:gambler (cautious(x) & risks(x) <-> probab_in_favour(x)),
forall x:gambler (clever(x) & risks(x) <-> much_to_win(x)),
## the fact stays unchanged
risks(Giovanni).
/* From the results given by logitest, we see that any of the following
sentences (or equivalent assertions) can be given as the correct
option:
- if Giovanni is a clever gambler, then there are always big sums
to win
- if Giovanni is a cautious gambler, then probabilities are always
in his favour.
And the following (or equivalent assertions) are good distractors:
1) if Giovanni is not cautious, then probabilities are not always in
his favour
2) if there is always a big sum to win, then Giovanni is a clever
gambler.
In order to generate other good distractors, we can run again Logitest
with the following Beliefs:
Beliefs:
### we add a sentence corresponding to common sense opinion
forall x:gambler (risks(x) -> -cautious(x)),
### the others are unchanged
### double implication instead of implicaton
forall x:gambler (cautious(x) & risks(x) <-> probab_in_favour(x)),
forall x:gambler (clever(x) & risks(x) <-> much_to_win(x)),
risks(Giovanni).
We now see that, besides 2, the following sentences are derivable, and
are consequently plausible distractors:
3) Giovanni is not cautious
4) sometimes probabilities are not in favour of Giovanni
*/