Well I'm sorry, but really... I'm refuting this: If I can style, I am a typesetter.
Given the following premises:
Typesetter is someone who can typeset. If one can typeset, one can style text and one can do graphics too.
Is the following conclusion valid?
If I can style, I am a typesetter.
Let T = typesetting
Let S = Text Styling
Let G = Graphics
T -> SG
S->T is valid.
Use the Truth Tables:
|1||0||0||0||1||* (I can typeset, I can't style, nor do I know how to do graphics [FAIL])|
|1||0||1||0||1||* (I can typeset, I can't style, but I know how to do graphics [FAIL])|
|1||1||0||0||1||* (I can typeset, I know how to style, but I don't know how to do graphics [FAIL])|
I haven't done truth table in a while, so please be considerate, but if you don't know what is it, go study the following links:
Let's represent 1 = true, and 0 = false. The * in the last column are the ones that fail that clause (whether styling concludes to be a typesetting)
As one can see, that conclusion is invalid. If you can refute my logic this way, please say so but in a boolean algebra or truth table fashion rather than words. Basic boolean stuff.
Even without "G", it's still invalid, as T->S =/=> S->T... Basic Definition (note: T->S == !T + S). I just add in "G" for a bit more meanings.