Discussions

1 comments

  • User Avatar
    coreyjanson479
    Thursday, Jul 30 2015

    To rephrase in lawgic:

    CR-->/LLW-->/SRO

    contrapositive: SRO-->LLW-->/CR

    We are trying to prove the conclusion that SRO-->/L; because the sufficient side variable lines up right where we want it (SRO), we just want a /L variable somewhere in our conditional chain that allows us to transitively draw the conclusion. Luckily, just adding it to the end allows us to do so:

    SRO-->LLW-->/CR-->/L

    What was the relationship we just added? /CR-->/L, which is the contrapositive of C: L-->CR

    A some statement could never allow us to infer any kind of new "all" relationship, which is what the question is asking us to prove, so that's why C is incorrect.

    0

Confirm action

Are you sure?