Spot reversed conditionals in agent explanations

An agent writes, "If the paragraph mentions a cedar, its title is green." It later calls a green title enough to establish that the paragraph mentions a cedar. The words feel familiar, yet the explanation has turned the rule around.

All passages below concern a fictional Jane Doe and her imagined paragraphs. They describe text on a page, with no action to carry out. Read them as claims to examine. For the file itself, what an .md ending means introduces Markdown.

Separate what follows if from what follows then

Jane Doe reads this invented rule and explanation:

If Jane Doe's paragraph mentions a cedar, then its title is green.

Its title is green, so the paragraph mentions a cedar.

Take the rule apart in prose. The clause after "if" says that the paragraph mentions a cedar. The clause after "then" says that its title is green. Keep those full phrases intact while considering the explanation beneath them.

The first clause is enough for the second under the stated rule. Given a cedar mention, the rule calls for a green title. Other paragraphs remain free to have green titles too.

You can mark the direction beside the sentence with words: "From cedar mention to green title." That small annotation preserves which clause the rule starts from. Leave the wording of the received rule visible so your annotation can be compared with it.

Locate where the explanation turns backward

Now reread the explanation: "Its title is green, so the paragraph mentions a cedar." It starts from the title's color. It ends by asserting the cedar mention. Those are the same clauses in reverse order.

The unsupported move happens at "so." The title is green may be stated in the passage, but the cited rule does not carry the reader from that detail to the paragraph's subject. Naming the two clauses makes that move visible without needing to judge the whole explanation at once.

Repetition can disguise the turn. "The title is green, as required for a cedar paragraph; therefore this is a cedar paragraph" still starts with the second clause and concludes the first. Calling the title required does not establish that only cedar paragraphs can have it.

Keep the objection tied to that move: "This conclusion uses the rule backward." You need not claim that the paragraph lacks a cedar. The paragraph might mention one, but that would need support beyond its green title.

Imagine the green title without the cedar

Try a possible passage that has the second clause without the first:

Jane Doe's paragraph describes a river and does not mention a cedar. Its title is green.

Does this invented case conflict with the original rule? No. The rule says what follows when there is a cedar mention. This paragraph has no such mention, so that rule places no demand on its title. A green title remains possible.

The reversed claim would forbid this case. It would insist that the green title means a cedar appears. That disagreement shows what the explanation added: a restriction on green titles that was absent from the stated rule.

This imagined passage is enough to expose the extra claim. Jane Doe's particular paragraph could still contain a cedar mention. To settle that, you would need its text or another statement about it. Keep a possible case separate from a statement that the case occurred.

The invented lines here remain quoted prose. Using Markdown code blocks concerns how literal passages are enclosed; changing their appearance would leave the conditional's direction unchanged.

Distinguish the converse from the contrapositive

The reversed rule has a name, the converse:

If Jane Doe's paragraph has a green title, then it mentions a cedar.

Both original clauses remain positive. Their positions have changed. This is the extra relationship the explanation relied on, and it needs its own support.

Compare a different sentence:

If Jane Doe's paragraph does not have a green title, then it does not mention a cedar.

This is the contrapositive. The clauses have changed positions and both have been negated. Under the original rule, a cedar mention requires a green title. If the title is not green, a cedar mention cannot fit that rule. The contrapositive preserves that relationship.

Do not stop at "the sentence was reversed." Read what happened to both clauses. A reversal without negation gives the converse. Reversal with both clauses negated gives the contrapositive. Negating both while leaving them in their original positions would say that no cedar mention means no green title; the imagined river paragraph already shows why that does not follow.

These distinctions depend on keeping the clause meanings steady. "Not green" denies green. Replacing it with another shade whose relation to green is unclear would add a new question. Use the original wording with a direct denial when comparing these sentences.

Revise the explanation to match its support

Jane Doe can describe the problem without deciding what the paragraph actually says:

A green title leaves the cedar mention uncertain. The stated rule runs from the mention to the title color. Whether this paragraph mentions a cedar remains unsettled here.

That revision withdraws the backward inference. It leaves the original rule intact and says exactly which conclusion lacks support. Retain the stated title color while withholding judgment about the cedar mention.

If another passage explicitly says that only paragraphs mentioning a cedar have green titles, read it separately. That added restriction would support the converse. Its presence would change what you can conclude; merely repeating the original if sentence would not.

For a separate file containing your reading, choosing a Markdown file name can distinguish it from the agent's explanation. Keep the original conditional beside your account so the direction remains visible.

Finish with the narrow question the explanation leaves: "What establishes the cedar mention apart from the green title?" Either the text supplies that support, or the cedar claim stays undecided. Your reading has located the reversed conditional without turning a possible conclusion into an established one.

Where Sashmark fits

Markdown reading and editing form Sashmark's planned desktop purpose for v1. Within Sashmark, AI is absent; v1 stays in development. An agent supplies the explanation separately; you interpret the conditional.