Supply the missing premise that makes the conclusion follow logically: P: D–most–BP: ?C:B–some–C

kentkaji March 2, 2019

Explanation

Can someone explain the logic behind this?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Ravi March 9, 2019

@kentkaji,

Happy to help.

We have

P: D-most-B (this can also be written as B-some-D)

P: ?

C: B-some-C

We need a C in the second premise for sure since it's part of the
conclusion. What if we put D - >C at the end of B-some-D?

We'd have B-some-D - >C

From this, we could conclude B-some-C

P: D-most-B (B-some-D)

P: D - ->C

C: B-some-C

D - >C is the missing premise, so (C) is our correct answer. The key to
figuring this question out is to rewrite the first premise to B-some-D
so you can see how you can connect everything up.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!