Interested

I understand better what you are asking now. I don't have an immediate answer for you. Maybe someone on here with more expertise can get you the answer. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

/W→RC and W→RC are two separate statements that do not contradict each other. In other words, they can both exist at the same time. In this question, we are looking for a question that cannot be true or must be false. A "must be false" question is just another way of saying that the correct answer choice can never be true. Since answer choice D is not contradicting the logic given in the stimulus then it could be true. It seems like you would benefit from reviewing the conditional logic core lessons. Review especially what happens when a sufficient condition is failed and when a necessary condition is failed.

@rahelaalam514 thanks for your explanation of why answer A is incorrect. I see the assumption I made and also I see the irrelevance of the answer choice. Thanks again.

Very interested.

Thank you for the clarification.

It doesn't seem to me that it would be a necessary assumption. It is only required that the individual needs be especially overconfident to be more likely to start a business. I don't think awareness of risk is necessary. Maybe these individuals had no idea of the risk that they were taking or took the time to determine precisely what the odds were. Let us say someone determined the odds and the odds were very poor in favor of success. If that person decided to proceed I suppose we could say that person is confident. They would be overconfident if they failed after undertaking such odds. But overconfidence doesn't require knowledge of the odds against you. You could be completely ignorant of the risk and still turn out to be overconfident if you attempted and failed at something you were confident you would achieve.

A little bit of clarification is needed for me. I have heard and read multiple sources say that Craig never accepts the truth of the premises.

Rifka conclusion: We do not need to stop and ask for directions.

Rifka Premise: We would not need to do that (stop and ask for directions) unless we were lost.

Rifka Implicit Premise: We are Lost.

It seems to me that Craig accepts Rifka's stated premise but rejects the implicit premise. It seems that he accepts the stated premise by saying "we are lost" so we need to stop. That would also make answer choice C more attractive though still wrong because he doesn't touch on validity and he would only be accepting a single premise. And the answer choice says "premises". Assuming that since "premises" is plural it would imply acceptance of more than a single premise.

Am I right in thinking that Craig did accept the stated premise but rejected the implicit presmise?

Thanks.

I would love someone to further address Kimber77's comment. I have the exact same thoughts. If the ideas are not conflated then you can only say that good meals depend on /BS. As far as I can tell.

Thank you both for the explanations that you provided to assist my understanding. I really appreciate it. Sami, your explanation I think helped open my understanding. The difficulty was seeing that he came to his conclusion because he assumed different methods will always yield different results. Thanks again.