We cannot make that deduction, as it is not necessarily true.
We can deduce that M and S will always go together because we have each of the following statements: M(g) -> S(g) S(t) -> M(t) M(t) -> S(t) S(g) -> M(g) Notice how the Sufficient condition accounts for every possible position (M(g), M(t), S(g), S(t)). This is key in allowing us to say that M and S must always go together.
This relationship is different than that of the examples you mention. For example, all we know about the relationship between P and K is as follows: P(t) -> K(t) K(g) -> P(g) We know nothing about what would happen if P(g) or K(t) were the Sufficient condition. Therefore, it could be possible to have P play golf while K plays tennis, which means they would not always go together.
We see the same issue with M and P. We only know: M(g) -> P(g) P(t) -> M(t) However, we do not have statements where M(t) and P(g) are in the Sufficient condition, so not all positions are accounted for. M could play tennis while P plays golf, in which case they would not be together.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
