Thanks for the question! The reason that we don’t need to negate the first premise is because what we’re dealing with is a “some” clause, and those are reversed without negation, unlike conditional statements, which are logical necessities and must be both reversed and negated. For example, consider the following statement:
Some snacks, such as ice cream, are cold foods.
So what we’re told here in essence is
snacks <—some—> cold foods
And we can reverse this. Some snacks are cold foods, like ice cream. But that must also mean that some cold foods, like ice cream, are also snacks. Are all cold foods snacks? No. A large chef salad isn’t (really) a snack. Are no cold foods snacks? Well, obviously, some have to be, like ice cream, which is both a cold food and a snack. So we can also think
cold foods <—some—> snacks
And this is without negating and reversing because it’s not “if this, then that.”
Now, since we know that that is true, we can take a look at the second statement, which is essentially an “all” statement, which is a form of logical necessity. So we diagram that as
Participates in local politics —> influence on community’s values
And since we know that, from the first statement (because of the word “include”):
Participates in local politics <—some—> public service people & selfish opportunists
we can reverse this without negation to get
public service people & selfish opportunists <—some—> participates in local politics
and so since some selfish opportunists participate in local politics, those people necessarily have an influence on the community’s values, which is what (A) tells us, and so (A) is the right answer.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
