C is stated as the correct answer but on the hypothetical that we worked through it has z not 1st if z is not first then O is before L according to the reverse of rule 2. Does C not break this rule?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi Logan, Remember that for contrapositives not only do we negate both sides but we also have to reverse the conditions. When our original rule is: Z1 -> L-O, Our contrapositive is If L not before O (or, if O-L), -> Z not 1 Because L-O is the necessary condition in the condition, it can exist on its own. That's why we can have L-O without having Z in 1. Hope this helps!
