I remember this type of question in an earlier drill. I just couldn't remember how the conclusion was explained fully so I worked from the little memory I had of this question which was wrong. I chose X does not exist. After I read the explanation I began to remember how to come to premise 3.
The conclusion is diagramed like this:
C: Y-some-Z
Z-some-Y
If my reasoning is correct we can only use the initial conditional statements because this is a quantifier. That's why I only reversed the statements (the lectures and feedback I have received on quantifiers is not to think of or call them contrapositives) conclusion because of this rule.
To link the proper premise to the conclusion the diagramming goes this way: Y-some-X and Y- some-Z and the reverse is Z-some-X and Z-some-Y is the logical understanding I hope I have correct.
Or the logical understanding should be the way below:
Y-some-X--->Z (Linking Premise 2)
Z-some-X--->Y (Linking Premise 1)
This is what makes X exists. I know it's already explained by LSATMax I just wanted to be sure my understanding of this type of conditional statements is logically reasoned properly. Thanks.
