Happy to help! The conclusion actually isn't "X-some-B," it's "X-some-A." Let's walk through we get to the conclusion.
The first premise is not A - >not B.
This can also be written as B - >A.
The next premise is B-most-X.
This can also be written as X-some-B.
We're tasked with figuring out what we can conclude from these two premises. We need to be thinking, "How can we link up the two premises to infer something out of them?"
B is a common link between the two premises, so let's look at how we can connect the rules with B.
B - ->A
X-some-B
Well, we can put it together so that X-some-B - ->A.
With this together, what do we know? We now know that some Xs have to be As, or X-some-A. Since some statements are reversible, we can also write this as A-some-X.
Answer choice (C) says X-some-A, and this is precisely what we figured out when we linked the two premises together. It's our conclusion, and it's the correct answer.
None of the other answer choices are conclusions that we can infer from the premises.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
andriyshchegelskiyMarch 20, 2019
No matter how hard I try to think I don't understand how to get a correct answer. Would there be a video that you can recommend?
GoziOctober 15, 2019
Why does the second premise wording change from "most" to "some"? Why can't it be x-most-b?
GoziOctober 15, 2019
I saw Mehran's comment in another thread saying to watch a video but could someone explain the reasoning for the above right here?
