2042 Every good game is a close game

[JaniceJ823]

Please help

[ohthatpatrick]

Every good game is a close game.
and
No close game has a clear winner.

These are both "conditional strength" (if/then statements) ... they provide certainty because they use UNIVERSALS like "every" and "no".

When we get conditional statements, we usually diagram them in order to see if they chain together.

The first sentence says:
IF good game, THEN close game (good --> close)

The second sentence says:
IF close game, THEN no clear winner (close --> no clear winner)

Those do indeed chain together, so we get
good --> close --> no clear winner
or the contrapositive
clear winner --> not close --> not good

We can read the front/back of that chain as
"If it's a good game, it has no clear winner"
or
"All good games have no clear winners"

Or you can read the contrapositive of that claim and say
"If it has a clear winner, it wasn't a good game"
"All games with clear winners are NOT good games"

The correct answer was
"Any game with a clear winner is NOT a good game". (clear winner ---> not good)

The incorrect answer was
"Any game that does not have a clear winner is a good game". (not clear winner ---> good)

The incorrect answer is an illegal reversal of what we know (good --> clear winner)