For some reason I couldn't see the question you linked to, but I am assuming this is a missing premise drill. If I'm totally off base, feel free to respond.
You wrote: B - some - X - some - C and concluded: B - some - C
These statements do not lead to the conclusion B some C. I think you are trying to treat this like a sufficient and necessary statement, which is a trap that a lot of people fall into. We cannot conclude that the Bs and Cs overlap.
Think of it this way. Some pets (P) are mammals (M). Some mammals (M) are gorillas (G). P - some - M - some - G
You are trying to conclude that some pets are gorillas, which is not valid. Both premises are true, but it is very possible that there are no pet gorillas. You cannot draw a conclusion based on two some statements like this.
P: X --- most --- B P: ? C: B --- some --- C
There was no need to alter the first premise, "most" statements generally give us more information than "some" statements. We can combine two most statements about the same group to draw a conclusion.
P1: X --- most --- B P2: X --- most --- C
If we use this second premise, we know that there is going to be overlap, and we can conclude B - some - C.
Alex-HostonJune 3, 2022
Ok so I'm still confused on the answer how did you get to combine the 1st premise and the 2nd premise if that is what we are trying to figure out. P1: X>>most>>>B P2: X>>most >>C. How did we conclude this? To conclude B some C?
Emil-KunkinJune 28, 2022
Hi Alex,
For these, I like to start backwards from the conclusion. We know that (and are trying to prove that) some Bs are C.
The only thing we know is that most Xs are Bs. So, lets imagine that we have 100 Xs, and 55 of them are both X and B. How could we prove that some Bs are C?
We could say that most Xs are Cs. If 51 Xs are C, then it must be the case that at least one B is also a C.
