No small countries and no countries in the southern hemisphere have permanent seats on the United Nations Security Co...

SamA April 24, 2020

Hello @isabella,

Absolutely! I'll start with a few diagrams.

PS = permanent seat
S = small
SH = southern hemisphere

1.
S or SH -----> not PS
PS ---> not S and not SH

FPE = favors peacekeeping efforts
FGR = favors greater role
AIS = against increased spending

2.
PS ---> FPE and FGR
not FPE or not FGR ---> not PS

3.
FPE --- some --- AIS

A. What must be true about a small country? That it does not have a permanent seat. However, there is no connection between not having a permanent seat and being against increased spending. It is entirely possible that every single small country is in favor of increased spending, so A does not have to be true.

You asked what it means that "necessary conditions do not lead to more info." In other words, it means that the necessary condition does not lead to the sufficient condition. Consider this:
X ---> Y
If I am told that Y exists, I cannot make a conclusion about X. It might exist or it might not. This is exactly how "not PS" gives us no information. It is the necessary condition in each of my first two diagrams. Necessary can exist with or without the sufficient, so there is no other conclusion that we can draw.

B. This is similar to A. What do we know about a country in the southern hemisphere? That it does not have a permanent seat. We know that every country with a permanent seat is in favor of peacekeeping efforts. But this has no bearing on countries without a permanent seat. Every single one of them could also be in favor.

E. Do we know of any countries that are in favor of a greater role for the UN? Yes, those with a permanent seat. What else do we know about these countries? That they are not located in the southern hemisphere. This is why E must be true, and is the correct answer.