Based on the passage, it can be concluded that the author and Broyles-González hold essentially the same attitude toward

Ravi on June 7, 2019

@diana-dejuk,

Happy to help. I would suggest reviewing the video lesson again to
further familiarize yourself with the concepts. It can take some time
getting used to understanding how to see what the missing premise is
in these types of questions.

Let's take a look at this sample question. This'll give you an example
of how to solve a missing premise question with quantifier statements.

P: X - >C (not C - >not X)
P:
C: A-some-C

We know that all Xs are Cs, and we need to add a premise to be able to
conclude that some As are Cs.

What if some As are Xs (A-some-X)? Well, if some As are Xs, and all Xs
are Cs, then we'd definitely be able to conclude that some As are Cs
(A-some-C).

P: X - >C (not C - >not X)
P: A-some-X
C: A-some-C

Thus, the missing premise is A-some-X.

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

diana-dejuk on July 8, 2019

it all clicked to me after I submitted the question, thanks!