The answer is A. Either way, the sentence is structured such that there will always be a Married person looking at an Unmarried person as long as Married and unmarried are your only options.
If Annie is married, A is true. If Annie is unmarried, A is true. Since being married or unmarried are mutually exclusive and represent the full set of options (note: being divorced, widowed, attached, engaged, etc would classify as unmarried), A stands true in all conditions.
In a survey, 80% of the people chose C. However, the 'correct' answer is A, as chosen & explained by Tactician.
Jack is married & looking at Annie. If Annie is single, then the statment (A married person is looking at an unmarried person).
If Annie is married, then the statement is also true ! It would be Annie looking at Terence the bachelor.
I had chosen C too! When I reflect on it, it's because i had overlooked Anne, in the sense I didn't consider the implications of her being married or being single. I straight away decided that since Anne's marital status is not given, I cannot rate the statement "A married person is looking at an unmarried person".
Now back to the Eratat case. SHK, to me at least, is something like Anne. We have no input on what its game is with Eratat, and therefore most of us don't stop to think about the various things SHK could do with Eratat. For sure, it's not a simple financial transaction. SHK spent 1.5 yrs doing due diligence, visiting Mgt & the stores and surely also made sure the RMB500+ m really exists.
In addition, we don't ask deep enough, why was the warrant excercise prx set at 25 cents? surely, there must be sound basis for it and it's not an exercise in tikam, tikam.
If we knew, then it would change the way we answer the question "Why this bond deal at this interest rate?" I suspect the answer would be a rational one.
Good point. In many ways, the skeptics have used arguments that have been exogenous in nature (meaning they treat the decisions of eratat in a manner that is random and without pattern), when in fact it an endogenous (choice oriented behavior)situation.
While I cannot ascertain management's intentions, plans, etc... I have noticed that:
1. The anti eratat camp tends to use exogenous arguments and when they do use endogenous reasoning, it's mainly towards their own agenda (meaning they want to win the argument for whatever reason).
2. The pro eratat camp do treat the situation as endogenous, but run the risk of being overly positive perhaps because of being vested.
Saying that, I have heard some good arguments from the pro eratat camp, and some points from the anti-eratat camp are well grounded. Once again, while it is up to the individual to discern risk and return... just a few points to highlight based on Yeh's married example.
1. The Price you enter, should you decide to, is an important factor
2. Treat the situation as endogenous, but analyze the financials with caution
3. Always go to fundamentals.
Ps: Thanks Newbiestock, I think some of your posts provided me with greater insights into the company, and they do seem to fit my understanding.
Pps: I'm still quite irritated that Joanna has not replied to me yet. When is the next company meeting, I will have to let Eratat know their IR firm is doing a lousy job. They did a much better job previously with Shellyn? (Did I get her name right?)
NextInsight
a hub for serious investors
