Unsupported. We know the specimen has white flowers, but we don’t know if it has thorny seedpods. Careful with negations—“no curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “no thorny seedpods”, but that doesn’t mean “curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “thorny seedpods”!

Unsupported. We know the specimen has white flowers, but we don’t know if it has thorny seedpods. Careful with negations—“no curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “no thorny seedpods”, but “curled leaves” tells us nothing about whether a specimen has thorny seedpods!

Very strongly supported. As shown below, by chaining the conditional claims, we see that “no curled leaves” is a necessary condition of both “fuzzy seeds” and “no white flowers”. Having curled leaves, then, is a sufficient condition for “white flowers” and “no fuzzy seeds”!

Anti-supported. Because the specimen has curled leaves, we know that it doesn’t have fuzzy seeds. We can’t determine whether it has thorny seedpods—“no curled leaves” is a sufficient condition for “no thorny seedpods”, but “curled leaves” tells us nothing about thorny seedpods!

Anti-supported. Because the specimen has curled leaves, we know that it has white flowers. It is true that it doesn’t have fuzzy seeds.