It is clear that none of the volleyball players at yesterday's office beach party came to work today since everyone w...

Tony October 3, 2018

I am so confused by how you merged the contrpostive and positve statement to come up with a transitive property statement for the stumulus of this question - atleast it's now how it's explained in the previous examples/questions. My understanding (based on previous explanations), was that, you can have a positive transitive statement as well as a contrapositive transitive statement but not merge the two to have one statement. This has been so confusing

Mehran October 16, 2018

@melissakaijukags remember, the contrapositive is identical in meaning so there is nothing stopping you from using a contrapositive to create a transitive chain.

For example,

P1: A ==> B

P2: not C ==> not B

We can create the following transitive chain from P1 and the contrapositive of P2:

A ==> B ==> C

Does that make sense?

mprezzy December 1, 2019

Thank you for that explanation above. I understand it. However I do not understand why question B was diagramed like this:
P-> AB.

Why wouldn't that premise be diagramed as you have demonstrated above:
P -> not AB.

Thank you.