The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

In lecture regarding the multiple possibilities with "not both" statements... I understood that: - Cannot be in both LA and NY at the same (impossible) - If in LA, then not in NY (possible) - If in NY, then not in LA (possible) - If not in LA, then not in NY (possible) Conceptually, I understand the last bulleted item (it is possible for one to be not in LA and also to be not in NY). But, kinda confused about the explanation... Mehran indicates that we can see from diagram being "not LA" is the necessary condition but, do we know if the sufficient condition exists. He goes on to cite a carrot/veggie example...if something is a vegetable, is it a carrot? Possibly yes and possibly no. Therefore it's possible for someone to be not in LA and also to be not in NY. But, is the rule behind the example simply that: the existence of the necessary condition does NOT allow us to conclude the existence of the sufficient condition?? And, further, what is the significance of this point - in other words, what is the "watch-out", if any?