In the explanation for this question, some of the contrapositives are not fully completed; mostly lacking negations. Why are the contrapositives just being used as random, without the same protocol throughout the equation? I don't trust the answer that you list as correct because of this.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
For some reason, I am unable to see the existing explanation you referenced. If you reply with the section where you found this question, I would be happy to take a look. In the meantime, I can walk through how I would solve this question.
We are given: P: B - most - X P: not A -> not B C: ?
Our first step should be to make any deductions we can from our given premises. With our S->N statement, this means reversing and negating to find the contrapositive. With our "most" statement, this means reversing to a "some" statement. This gives us: P: B - most - X X - some - B P: not A -> not B B -> A C: ?
Now, we look to what we can combine from our first two premises. We know that we can combine a "some" statement with an S->N statement when they have the Sufficient condition in common so that the arrow points away from the quantifier. This is the case with our existing premises.
We can make the following chain: X - some - B -> A This can be simplified to: X - some - A
Therefore, our missing conclusion is: X - some - A Since "some" statements are reversible, the deduction we can draw from this is: A - some - X
So, our final answer looks like: P: B - most - X X - some - B P: not A -> not B B -> A C: X - some - A A - some - X
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any additional questions!
