Am I dissecting this correctly? :

Necessary Condition: I

Sufficient Condition: SC

So the Lawgic would be:

SC->I

hSC

-----

hI.

However, since the plaintiff didn't satisfy the necessary condition of 'I', the contrapositive would be...

/I-> /SC

h/I

----

h/SC.

I guess I'm getting hung up on the notation of the

SC-> I

h/I

----

h/SC.

Are you combining the two notations into one?

Tiger: Cigars have nicotine which is highly addictive. Once you start smoking cigars, it will be difficult to stop.

Disney: Brian is shopping for a new home. He's narrowed it down to two buildings. The condos in building A are less than $400k but they're small and need repairs. Condos in building B are $650k, huge and in pristine condition. Brian's budget only allows for a condo that is $350k. Brian will live in a small condo that needs repairs.

Cat: The hotel housekeeping staff is appalled at the state of the room. Blinds are torn, the coffee table is smashed, there are bottles of booze everywhere and the mattress has been thrown over the balcony. A well known rock star who has a reputation of trashing hotel rooms is found passed out on the floor. He is responsible for the damage to his room.