Benjamin on February 10 at 01:46AM
I am copying and pasting an old question that was never answered. I have the same question.
I am having trouble with the inferences drawn from the third premise and answer choice A. It does not seem it is proper to infer that "If a person is dishonest, then they are rich" from the contrapositive of the third premise ("If not honest, then not a poor farmer"). Couldn't a dishonest person still be poor, just not a farmer? Similarly, the contrapositive of answer A is "If not poor, then not an honest farmer." I understand that the sufficient part of this contrapositive is identical to "If rich," but I am confused why we can infer that being rich is sufficient for being dishonest. Couldn't a rich person be honest so long as they are not a farmer?
I guess my overall confusion would be how we can know that, for this question, we can make the logical jump from "Not an Honest Farmer" to "Dishonest," for example.
Ben on March 10 at 04:01PM
on May 31 at 03:22PM
on June 2 at 09:37AM