No projects that involve historical restorations were granted building permits this month. Since some of the current ...

Advaith on November 4, 2015

Explanation

Could you please explain this?

1 Reply

Mehran on November 9, 2015

Let's diagram the stimulus first.

No projects that involve historical restorations (HR) were granted building permits (GP) this month.

HR ==> not GP

Some of the current projects of the firm S&S are historical restorations.

S&S-some-HR

Therefore, at least some of S&S's projects were not granted building permits this month.

This is a valid conclusion that can be drawn by combining the first two premises in a transitive formation, as follows:

S&S-some-HR ==> not GP

Therefore: S&S-some-not GP

Answer choice (D) is identical, although the order of the premises is different. I am going to rearrange them so you can see the logical structure is identical:

None of the films released this season (RTS) were enthusiastically reviewed (ER).

RTS ==> not ER.

Several films directed by Hannah Barker (HBF) were released this season.

"Several" is diagrammed as "some."

HBF-some-RTS

Now, combine these two premises in a transitive formation, as follows:

HBF-some-RTS ==> not ER

Therefore: HBF-some-not ER.

That is identical to the stimulus.

Hope this helps!